@Devs- Stabilize your rear deflectors!

[Verain]

(removed) Edited January 26, 2015 by Verain

[DamascusAdontise]

redacted (because it serves only to derail a good thread.) Edited January 26, 2015 by DamascusAdontise

[Verain]

(removed) Edited January 26, 2015 by Verain

[Verain]

Also I cant be dismissed easily as not reading your posts or being unable to read.

 

Your post snaked in there, and my oneliner response about that was to Lendul. I edited it to be clearer, my apologies. I responded first to him, then another post to you.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Verain

[RickDagles]

Charged plating on T1 strikes sounds a lot more appealing if scouts don't have easy access to armor piercing lasers, right? And I bet it was pretty good, for most of the development...

 

Charged plating is still an extremely bad choice against quad/pod or LC/pod so I think this is irrelevant.

 

I don't think the devs intended for things like rocket pods, BLC, or Targeting Telemetry to be nearly as powerful as they are. But I also don't think they intended for Gunships to be as elusive as they can be when well-flown. So if you are going to nerf Scout TTK/DPS you absolutely need to nerf something about gunships.

 

 

But hey, I think we're both pretty biased here. Right down to our forum avatars, you are a gunship player and I'm a scout player. What we really need is for an unbiased player to make the call.

Edited January 26, 2015 by RickDagles

[Ramalina]

I think that adding BLCs to a T1 Strike would probably be a fairly insignificant change for them. Especially if tuned down a little bit.

 

Ion cannon + Clusters is pretty close to BLC + clusters in terms of function. In fact, in the case of a high evasion target, the Ion combo may actually be better due to higher rate of fire.

 

Whether left alone or slightly nerfed, BLCs would not really give Strikes much in the way of increased burst damage, as it's an interaction with Systems components and a spaceframe that can get to point blank range and stay there that does that for the scouts.

 

It wouldn't be bad, it just wouldn't be much better than what strikes already have. The build options would be fun, but I'd bet on needing a microscope to detect any changes in the meta resulting from giving BLCs to strikes.

[Ryuku-sama]

I think that adding BLCs to a T1 Strike would probably be a fairly insignificant change for them. Especially if tuned down a little bit.

 

Ion cannon + Clusters is pretty close to BLC + clusters in terms of function. In fact, in the case of a high evasion target, the Ion combo may actually be better due to higher rate of fire.

 

Whether left alone or slightly nerfed, BLCs would not really give Strikes much in the way of increased burst damage, as it's an interaction with Systems components and a spaceframe that can get to point blank range and stay there that does that for the scouts.

 

It wouldn't be bad, it just wouldn't be much better than what strikes already have. The build options would be fun, but I'd bet on needing a microscope to detect any changes in the meta resulting from giving BLCs to strikes.

 

HLC/BLC/Cluster retro-jouster. People will cry.

[Bolo_Yeung]

HLC/BLC/Cluster retro-jouster. People will cry.

 

Well, strike needs buffing, right?

 

And seriously - ion cannon + BLC, breaks trough any fortress/directional shield. Available at any time, not 6 seconds per 60 like TT+concentrated fire combo.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Bolo_Yeung

[RickDagles]

Well, strike needs buffing, right?

 

And seriously - ion cannon + BLC, breaks trough any fortress/directional shield. Available at any time, not 6 seconds per 60 like TT+concentrated fire combo.

 

Anything with shield piercing deals with that just fine. Rocket pods, heavy lasers, and railguns in particular.

[Ryuku-sama]

Well, strike needs buffing, right?

 

And seriously - ion cannon + BLC, breaks trough any fortress/directional shield. Available at any time, not 6 seconds per 60 like TT+concentrated fire combo.

 

BLC would do amost as much damage as Ion in close range... BLC/HLC would be way more dangerous.... Well it would make T1 strike a true multirole fighter....

[Lendul]

@Lendul- If you can't read my plain words I can't help you.

Plain words would be Yes or No. Pick one.

[Ryuku-sama]

Plain words would be Yes or No. Pick one.

 

BLC aren't the most powerful short range weapon. Quad and LLC both have higher DPS than BLC. BLC advantage is mainly its very low RoF which raise burst DPS way too much and create a click-and-shot playstyle which avoid losing weapon energy by occasionnal misses. BLC at its core is a supperiority weapon. It doesn't have the range for a fighting weapon. Gunships lack of manoeuvrability neuter the superiority part of BLC... Leaving only a powerful defensive weapon, but easy to counter.

[DamascusAdontise]

redacted all my worthless "argumnet" posts, this thread doesn't deserve to be derailed. If I have anything else to say ill make sure its on topic

[Verain]

Seconded that motion.

 

 

Even with the timeline at PAX not mentioning GSF, I'm still hopeful we are getting dev attention soon.

 

This thread is about small things that they could do for game balance, but if there was actual dev time, which of these do you think would generate the best effect per dev dollar spent? This assumes that the game will be balanced after the change, of course.

 

> New ship class (presumed high time spent across several department, require moderate level of balancing)

> New maps (very high amount of time spent by whomever designs worlds: needs a Starbucks on the cap ships)

> New game mode(s) (presumed high time spent by actual coders and moderate time by designers, mild ship tweaks)

> New ships in existing classes (moderate time spent across several departments, mild level of balancing)

> Cross server (extreme time spent by senior devs and their teams, very large effects game wide)

> PvE missions (extraordinary time spent across several departments, similar in scope to a full expansion and in some places higher)

> Integration into the game world, aka ability to fly around the fleet and existing planets, possibly engage in space pvp (moderate amount of time spent in several departments, but GSFers gain the ability to log off with our stings curled up together like puppies)

> Addition of new weapons and components to all ships (presumed high time spent in balancing, mild time in art, moderate time coding)

> Better tutorial (moderate amount of coding time)

> Addition of "Events", time frames where the rules are a bit different (variable amount of time developing, moderate to high amounts of time spent on design)

> Your idea (try to be better than "matchmaking fixes" or "please delete class X")

[DamascusAdontise]

IMO the single most important addition is their cryptic "better than cross server" I think this stands to have the most development time but also serves to enhance multiple parts of the game at once (not just GSF) assuming they are physically capable of doing this I think its the best bang for their buck.

 

As far as just GSF I think if they added the following I would happily play this game for a long time:

 

New Tutorial (either this: Rings and Balls Tutorial or a true Moving Targets tutorial)

 

New Maps (Theres just so much cool stuff they can do here)

 

New Game Mode (id love to see the "assault" game type we have all bee clamoring for)

 

New Ship Class (This one seems hard, but adding a whole other class would SUBSTANTIALLY increase my play time)

 

New Ships in Existing Classes (especially a CM version of the T3's - the idea of T4 is titillating as well, there are still some combinations they have not tried)

 

New Components

 

Balancing

 

//////

 

I know that seems like a lot but those things (with a few exceptions) are minor-moderate time investments. If everything in that list happened then this game would have plenty to offer all of us (new players through vets)

 

On a side note, being a SWG refugee - the idea of integration into the game world is very near and dear to my heart. I would love this, but I doubt it will come around. If it did though I would happily throw money at them above and beyond my sub.

Edited January 26, 2015 by DamascusAdontise

[Odacervicix]

Thanks for starting this thread, Verain. I generally agree with most of the suggestions in the original post. I've included a couple of additional suggestions below, which may or may not be on target. No worries, if I'm off base. I just thought I'd throw them out as I didn't see them mentioned.

 

Quick Charge Shields:

 

These shields are on both of the starter ships, and the -30% to shield strength makes those ships fragile. For the Blackbolt/Novadive, this is one of the first components I switch out when leveling the ship, even before dumping the rapid fire lasers. Both of the other shields are so much better. If I want mobility, I take the shield to engine converter, which provides far more mobility and has a much stronger shield. Otherwise I take distortion for the tankiness and missile break. On strikes, the analysis is a bit more mixed. Quick Charge Shields have a role in some builds, but I think that's mostly because strikes are starved for mobility. Anyway, I would propose a moderate buff to shield strength for Quick Charge, perhaps even removing the shield strength penalty completely.

 

Cluster Missiles:

 

With regard to cluster missiles, I currently feel like clusters versus rocket pods is a valid choice depending on preference and build. And I actually fear pod builds a bit more than cluster builds. Both are very strong. But I'd dislike it if clusters were nerfed to the point where everyone just took pods (except the poor strikes, who don't have that choice.) They are a bit too easy to lock on, and they reload a bit too fast. But I can also see everyone just switching to pods if the nerf is too extreme.

 

 

With regard to Distortion Field. Uhhh, yeah. I'm staying out of that one.

 

Interdiction Drive:

 

Alright, I know this is not one of those abilities that needs fixing for the meta. I just thought I'd bring it up, because I like the concept behind it. But this is just punishingly hard for me to use in solo play. The engine power required to activate it seems huge. The duration is short. The cool down is long. And the 3K field is too small. This has the same lag problem that EMP field has, wherein my interface is telling me that I am 2.8K from a target, but the server thinks I'm 3.1K or more away. I trigger the ability and miss completely. To deal with that, I started letting the targets get to within 2.5-2K just to be sure that I'd hit them with it, which feels a bit like assisted suicide against a battlescout. And the speed boost only seems useful if you start with a nearly full tank before hitting the ability. Otherwise, you're sitting there with a nice speed boost, but you're running on fumes. This makes proactively placing the interdiction field more difficult since you don't want to boost too much before using it.

 

Anyway, I'd suggest substantial buffs to one or more of engine cost, duration, field size and cool down. Something like no engine cost, 12 seconds duration, and a 5K field. Maybe that's too much. But for me, at my limited skill level, this is currently so far below useful, I can't even really calibrate how to make it useful and balanced.

 

I know that in some organized play, stacking interdiction effects is a sound strategy. I haven't had the time or opportunity to do that. Perhaps the changes I've suggested would be overpowered in that context. If you guys use this and think it's awesome under a satellite or something, feel free to shoot me down.

 

I don't feel particularly strongly about this one. It's such a niche, I don't think it's urgent to tweak it. But if we are going to get a balance pass, I thought I would bring it up. Who knows when we'll get a second one. And it could be a real cool ability if they tweaked the numbers a bit, but I've never been able to get any payoff out of it.

[Verain]

Quick Charge Shields:

These shields are on both of the starter ships, and the -30% to shield strength makes those ships fragile.

 

I agree. I deleted my set on Quick Charge Shields before posting, though, because they aren't awful or anything. I do agree that they could use a buff, and if you follow my link in the OP to my full list of suggestions I do bring that up. Removing the 30% penalty would probably be too big of a buff (without directionals getting a buff), but it would not be the end of the world. Certainly, QCC and Directionals feel like a choice, even if directionals usually wins.

 

 

Cluster Missiles:

 

With regard to cluster missiles, I currently feel like clusters versus rocket pods is a valid choice depending on preference and build.

 

Absolutely. My feeling that clusters need a small nerf isn't because they are an auto-pick component over pods, it's because they seem too good at their job. Clusters and pods have very different jobs. There also seem to be more available counters to pods across all ships, and the other suggestions I make (such as a longer cooldown on disto) have a side effect of making clusters even better, but they don't really impact pods.

 

 

Interdiction Drive:

 

Alright, I know this is not one of those abilities that needs fixing for the meta. I just thought I'd bring it up, because I like the concept behind it. But this is just punishingly hard for me to use in solo play. The engine power required to activate it seems huge. The duration is short. The cool down is long. And the 3K field is too small.

 

My thinking is that, as an engine component on bombers, it seems okish. Like, you can stack it with another snare and it's super good. But all those things you say are valid. This component is present on all the gunships, and it is pretty unplayable there, and also on the type 3 scout, where it can provide some group utility but is really needs to. The original version of this move was too easy to snare people to a halt, and it got a balance change to address that (and note, it wasn't a great move then- it just had one very frustrating use). I feel that it's bad right now and the devs are sort of ok with it, but you are absolutely correct that along with the large magnitude nerf it could have seen a reduction in cost and cooldown, or an increase in radius and duration. But I do think that it's actually an ok pick on a bomber, and it's just not as important as the others. All your points are good though.

 

I don't feel particularly strongly about this one. It's such a niche, I don't think it's urgent to tweak it. But if we are going to get a balance pass, I thought I would bring it up. Who knows when we'll get a second one. And it could be a real cool ability if they tweaked the numbers a bit, but I've never been able to get any payoff out of it.

 

No, it's valid. There's a bunch of components that don't get all the attention that they should, and could offer cool depth to the meta if addressed.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't really have much to add to this thread, because I agree pretty much entirely with everything Verain has posted.

[CrazyOldMystic]

I look at the original post and what I see is lets nerf things so my gunship can not be taken out by scouts. I am not in favor of nerfing the evasion certain scouts can stack, they do not have the damage resistance to take consistent hits. So no nerfing evasion ability that is used by the sting and I am sure the Republic A wing variation is not a good idea. Speaking of the Distortion field.

 

Buffing up railguns is the last thing gsf needs, or for that matter buffing up thermite torpedoes/proton torpedoes. Especially thermite torpedos fully upgraded and in the hands of a ace scout pilot, and they can light up anyone. This from a pilot who recently took to using Proton torpdeos and I think buffing them up would be a mistake.

 

You are also trying to turn the the strike into a scout thats not what is their for. Yes the strike fighter needs buffing, specifically in weapon choices. Only one strike can use both Ion cannons and some sort of blaster fire. While the other types are too heavily reliant upon team buffing or missiles. The strikes need three options across the board on strikes. Two blaster weapon choices to change between in combat at any given time, they all need armor. The fact is when I ran a strike I found out how effective they can be at taking down scouts and bombers. Especially if you have Ion cannons and blasters equipped.

 

If Bioware went ahead with what your suggesting scouts, would be useless, strikes would be stuck in limbo with no real improvement, and gunships would have very little to fear from scouts taking them out. I feel the op is way off base on the strike.

 

I understand the original poster may have given this a go but it reads like it came from a gunship pilot. This being said Ive posted a few thigns hear and their and later on found out I was not entirely accurate, but on this I am pretty dang sure I got a grasp on these point. I have a bomber mastered been messing around with strikes and scouts a good bit now. Bioware if you reading this please do not implement is requested changes. Otherwise the gunship problem is only going to increase. On that last sentience I am getting better at countering gunships, especially when I have scout pilots driving them off. If they nerf evasion thats not going to end well for scouts.

[Ramalina]

@CrazyOldMystic

 

I'm sorry to inform you, but you do not have a very good grasp of GSF mechanics or the specifics of what Verain was suggesting in his post (for example, on the whole his suggestions end up nerfing gunships a bit). There's a lot to grasp, and a lot of it isn't very obvious to beginners so it's not that surprising. What you got right was that Verain likes gunships and that only one type of strike can equip Ion cannons.

 

Mostly it sounds like you have poor situational awareness of long range threats and aren't very good at using line of sight obstructions to defend yourself. Those are problems that affect almost all GSF players at the beginning, and learning how to deal with those challenges effectively takes a lot of practice. You're also evaluating balance in play against some very unskilled players (if you think landing torpedoes on other ships is at all practical, it's because you're targeting people who have no clue how to defend themselves against missiles effectively).

 

If you'd like help, most of the good pilots are happy to mentor other players, and if you'd like I can post some tips on how to deal with longer range threats, but that would be more appropriate as content for another thread. Drakolich's "Ask Me Anything / Training" thread for example.

[Verain]

CoM, you have an irrational hatred of gunships, and you don't seem to understand a lot of the mechanics. It's especially silly to think that gunships will become dominant from a list of suggestions than includes nerfs to slug railgun, burst laser cannon, and distortion shield. It's also disturbing that you think giving strikes the ability to play the same game that the other three ships do would be "making them into scouts", especially given that they already ARE bad scouts for the most part. Finally, you are of course opposed to any of the reasonable nerfs to the scout burst cooldown.

 

 

Class favoritism? Smells like projection. I think you don't have a lot of perspective on the other ships. Especially if you think plasma railgun is OP or whatever.

[Lendul]

... irrational ... gunships... don't ...understand... reasonable ...

 

Class favoritism..

Should Gunships have the best long and short range weapon?

[Caernos]

While BLCs are very good at short range, it is an incredibly short range.

 

Arguably, their max range is 4000M but at that range they only have 70% accuracy (before passives/upgrades). Compare this to something like Quads or LLCs which have 85% and 80% accuracy respectively at their max ranges. When range drops each weapon become more accurate, but BLCs don't become really accurate until under 3000M. Arguably you really don't want to be shooting BLCs at anything unless it's less than 3KMs away. To that end, I'd argue there's a "safe zone" where you can effectively engage a gunship between 9KMs and 5KMs. In that range, if you're evasive at all and bouncing around, you're going to be much harder to hit with a railgun shot and you're beyond the effective range of their BLCs. In my experience, the better gunship pilots only use their BLCs when they want to startle or scare-off someone coming at them or their cooldowns are dead and they have no engine power to run with and have to dogfight. In that regard, BLCs are more of a defensive weapon.

 

I used to think that it was unfair that Gunships got both BLCs and Railguns. But in the last year, as my flying has improved, I've learned the limitations of BLCs and the only ship that I find them to be really deadly on is the Battlescout who can get on a ships tail and stay there. On a gunship, even a skirmisher gunship, BLCs don't bother me to much. That said, Verain has suggested some sound nerfs to their damage which would probably bring them more in line and even out the meta a bit.

 

My apologies for cluttering up your thread Verain.

[Danalon]

Any nerf to DF or BLC will affect the scouts that can equip them more than the gunships that can equip them. Gunships aren't designed for melee and are actively trying to avoid melee situations, a nerf to BLC wouldn't affect their main gameplay. Same goes for DF; a scout that needs to go melee is locked on and shot at way more frequent than a gunship.

 

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying those components may or may not be too powerful or there should or shouldn't be changes.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Danalon

[Drakkolich]

Should Gunships have the best long and short range weapon?

 

Yes (That simple enough?)