If the top 3 meta ships were deleted, what would happen?

[Toraak]

Its the other way around, T1 costs 2500 fleet requisition, T2 and T3 costs 5,000. The Mine layers (Rampart/Razor) cost 2,500 while the Drone Carrier costs 5,000. Thus the Rampart Razor is T1, and the Warcarrior Legion is T2, at least that's the way every one I talk to has handled it since release, and its the same way the other ships are handled as well.

 

It's not based on the cost. it's based on where the ship is in the Ship Mastery part of achievements.

 

And in those achievements. 1st is Warcarrier, then Rampart, then Sledhammer.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Toraak

[DakhathKilrathi]

It's not based on the cost. it's based on where the ship is in the Ship Mastery part of achievements.

 

According to whom? Tunewalker has it right.

Edited January 30, 2016 by DakhathKilrathi

[Toraak]

Well if you look at those achievements, Every other ship combo fits.

 

T1 scout=Nova/blackbolt

 

T2 scout =FF/Sting

 

T3 scout= Spearpoint/bloodmark

 

T1 GS= quarrel/mangler

 

T2 GS= Comet breaker/dustmaker

 

T3 GS=Condor/Jurgoran

 

T1 SF=Star Guard/Rycer

 

T2 SF= Pike/Quell

 

T3 SF= Clarion/Imperium

 

So if every other one is correct on how we call them in the tiers, why reverse the healing bomber, and Minelayer?

[DakhathKilrathi]

See Tunewalker's above and perfectly logical explanation. The T1 is the one that costs 2500 req (or the one you start with), for all ship types. That is, it's the easiest one to get.

[Danalon]

So if every other one is correct on how we call them in the tiers, why reverse the healing bomber, and Minelayer?

 

It's not tiers, it's types. Tiers imply they're ranked by how good they are, and they clearly aren't listed by strength.

 

Besides. Bombers are the only class where there can be any doubt about which ship is which type, but I always explained it like this.

 

T1 are the starter ships. Novadive/Blackbolt, Starguard/Rycer and Quarrel/Mangler (01Nov 2013 sub reward). For those who didn't have a sub at that day, the Quarrel/Mangler costs 2500 and the only other ship costing 2500 is the Rampart/Razorwire, therefore it's the T1.

 

T2 are the ships which were in game from the start, but aren't starter ships. (Bombers got added a little later, hence the confusion).

 

T3 are the ships which got added last.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Danalon

[caederon]

Would you feel better if they called it an interceptor instead of a scout? Because that's the role it actually fills.

Maybe a little! It still ends up filling the role you might expect a Strike Fighter to as well, though, thanks to the anti-armor weapons. Do you think taking that anti-armor capacity away from the T2 scouterceptor would wreck it as far as having a place in the game, being fun and powerful to fly? What if it retained BLC and pods but neither weapon had the armor ignore talent? C'mon, if we nerf it a little maybe Nemarus will let it stay in the meta!

 

Despon

[GavinBail]

Actually in most sources the A-wing and Tie interceptors are designed as anti-fighter ships, while Y and B wings are bombers with some dogfighting capability, X wings are designed to be able to handle anything, but rarely do better than the specific ship type it is competing with. So that leaves the scouts as dogfighters and the rest as.... well here is where GSF falls apart since all we have is dogfighting really, we don't have the need for massed proton torp vollys against a capital ship, we just have starfighters. So It is probably futile to try and compare how the GSF ships are used to how the fighters in star wars are used.

[GavinBail]

To answer the OPs question: I would probably never leave my Novadive.

[Nemarus]

Maybe a little! It still ends up filling the role you might expect a Strike Fighter to as well, though, thanks to the anti-armor weapons. Do you think taking that anti-armor capacity away from the T2 scouterceptor would wreck it as far as having a place in the game, being fun and powerful to fly? What if it retained BLC and pods but neither weapon had the armor ignore talent? C'mon, if we nerf it a little maybe Nemarus will let it stay in the meta!

 

Despon

 

Honestly, the easiest way to please me would be to delete BLC's entirely, and lower the tracking penalty on every other gun.

 

I think that is the one change which could make a huge difference. In my opinion, they should have never been in the game. The burst is too good, the angle is too good, the upgrades are too good (shieldpiercing and armorpiercing? O devs), and they don't even match the way any starfighter shoots in the movies or past games.

[RickDagles]

Thinking about that configuration of ships playing matches on Denon gives me a headache. I mean, a bigger one than playing on Denon gives me to begin with. No beacons, no speed... I'd almost be tempted to say the entire team should run T3 scouts with two bombers, one for each sat.

Despon

 

Your strategy would lose hard against an entire team of charged plated Pikes.

 

 

A meta with the following would be really cool:

 

T1 Scout (LC/Pods/TT) counters T2 Gunship as it always has

T2 Strike (HLC/clusters/CP) counters T1 Scout because he only worries about pods

T1 Strike (HLC/concussion/directional/retro) counters T2 Strike due to AP HLC and AP Conc

T2 Gunship counters T2 Strike extra hard due to extra CP shield pen

T2 Bomber counters T1 Scout as it always has

T2 Strike (CP) counters T2 Bomber due to mostly ignoring mines and drones

 

T3 Scout maintains its current role. T3 Strike would be ridiculously hard to kill without ion, but it would still have just as much trouble killing things, especially a T2 Strike with CP. But at least protops/thermites would have an actual niche use against GOOD players now.

Edited January 30, 2016 by RickDagles

[Danalon]

Honestly, the easiest way to please me would be to delete BLC's entirely, and lower the tracking penalty on every other gun.

 

Removing BLC (or their AP upgrade) might work in a meta without the current top ships but I doubt it would do anything good in the current meta.

 

When I defend a satellite with my T1 Bomber (with CP), I usually die because of a T2 Scout with BLC who attacks me while someone else removed my mines. Even if BLC wasn't removed but lost it's AP, it would be so much more difficult to kill CP targets, because the other weapons with AP aren't effective enough. Slugs take more time to kill a CP target and a Gunship usually loses LoS more than once when trying to kill a Bomber at a Satellite. HLC and Pods can be partially avoided by evasive flying because both lack firing arc and burst damage. Protorps and Concs combine the positioning problem of Slugs with the targeting problem of HLC/Pods.

[Ryuku-sama]

Removing BLC (or their AP upgrade) might work in a meta without the current top ships but I doubt it would do anything good in the current meta.

 

When I defend a satellite with my T1 Bomber (with CP), I usually die because of a T2 Scout with BLC who attacks me while someone else removed my mines. Even if BLC wasn't removed but lost it's AP, it would be so much more difficult to kill CP targets, because the other weapons with AP aren't effective enough. Slugs take more time to kill a CP target and a Gunship usually loses LoS more than once when trying to kill a Bomber at a Satellite. HLC and Pods can be partially avoided by evasive flying because both lack firing arc and burst damage. Protorps and Concs combine the positioning problem of Slugs with the targeting problem of HLC/Pods.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss strikes as armor piercing specialist. They would only need a slight mobility buff to compete with scout in that domain. They would still lose a straight up dogfight, but it wouldn't make the Razorwire out of control.

[caederon]

Your strategy would lose hard against an entire team of charged plated Pikes.

Words spoken for the first, and possibly last, time in history! My strategy was born less from strategy than from sanity. The thought of those CP Pikes lurching along, out of engine power and waiting for BR to cool down, crawling so slooo o o o o o wly across the vast Denonic expanse... at what price, victory? It'd be kind of fun for the niche-est of niche builds to have a place. I'd still rather make bad ships better, though.

 

When I defend a satellite with my T1 Bomber (with CP), I usually die because of a T2 Scout with BLC who attacks me while someone else removed my mines. Even if BLC wasn't removed but lost it's AP, it would be so much more difficult to kill CP targets, because the other weapons with AP aren't effective enough.

So, I know there is no precedent in GSF for a component being different on one ship than another, but what if T2 scouts got BLC with no AP, and T1 strikes got the real deal, full BLC. T1 strikes, the 'uses every laser except, inexplicably, BLC' ship which ought to have it anyway, would be fully capable of dealing harshly with T1 bombers. They could load out for AP at all ranges, with BLC and HLC. They could load out for pure short range destruction, with Ion Cannon and BLC specced for added Hull Damage (which nobody uses because the bonus to shield damage is better... but if you have a super shield killer gun...)

 

That one change, giving T1 strikes BLC, would turn them into an offensive powerhouse that needed to be respected and dealt with. Taking the AP from T2 scouts BLC would leave them with one less role to fill but they'd still be great at intercepting enemy ships.

 

You could always make a Light Burst Laser Cannon and Heavy Burst Laser Cannon to differentiate them, if you wanted to avoid confusion.

 

Despon

[Nemarus]

Words spoken for the first, and possibly last, time in history! My strategy was born less from strategy than from sanity. The thought of those CP Pikes lurching along, out of engine power and waiting for BR to cool down, crawling so slooo o o o o o wly across the vast Denonic expanse... at what price, victory? It'd be kind of fun for the niche-est of niche builds to have a place. I'd still rather make bad ships better, though.

 

 

So, I know there is no precedent in GSF for a component being different on one ship than another, but what if T2 scouts got BLC with no AP, and T1 strikes got the real deal, full BLC. T1 strikes, the 'uses every laser except, inexplicably, BLC' ship which ought to have it anyway, would be fully capable of dealing harshly with T1 bombers. They could load out for AP at all ranges, with BLC and HLC. They could load out for pure short range destruction, with Ion Cannon and BLC specced for added Hull Damage (which nobody uses because the bonus to shield damage is better... but if you have a super shield killer gun...)

 

That one change, giving T1 strikes BLC, would turn them into an offensive powerhouse that needed to be respected and dealt with. Taking the AP from T2 scouts BLC would leave them with one less role to fill but they'd still be great at intercepting enemy ships.

 

You could always make a Light Burst Laser Cannon and Heavy Burst Laser Cannon to differentiate them, if you wanted to avoid confusion.

 

Despon

 

But is there a reason for a Scout to have BLC at all?

[caederon]

But is there a reason for a Scout to have BLC at all?

Yes, the other short range lasers are awful. I guess in the ideal dream-state of the game, LLC and RFL would be buffed and fixed so they are viable weapons. Maybe if they were, people wouldn't care if BLC was gone. If you want to employ tactics that involve fighting at close range, there is currently no viable choice besides BLC.

 

Despon

[Kinsha]

I'm a fan of BLC losing its armor piercing ability or having the AP lowered enough with a competitive option on the other side of the tree, but CP would need some tweaking. Actually, I think CP should be re-balanced in general even without AP BLC being discussed. It's ability to negate fire should be softened a little bit so that a ship can still fall under concentrated fire from multiple ships while also having the armor piercing weapons effectiveness vs CP weakened as well so that CP still remain a viable alternative to the other shields available.

[DakhathKilrathi]

Maybe a little! It still ends up filling the role you might expect a Strike Fighter to as well, though, thanks to the anti-armor weapons. Do you think taking that anti-armor capacity away from the T2 scouterceptor would wreck it as far as having a place in the game, being fun and powerful to fly? What if it retained BLC and pods but neither weapon had the armor ignore talent? C'mon, if we nerf it a little maybe Nemarus will let it stay in the meta!

 

Despon

 

As long as turrets have armor, all ships should have some way to damage them. Additionally, this would mean a scout could never prevent a Charged Plating bomber from getting to a satellite, and that's their job, so that'd be a problem. Armor as a mechanic probably needs some tweaking, but removing anti-armor weapons from scouts isn't the way to do it.

[caederon]

As long as turrets have armor, all ships should have some way to damage them. Additionally, this would mean a scout could never prevent a Charged Plating bomber from getting to a satellite, and that's their job, so that'd be a problem. Armor as a mechanic probably needs some tweaking, but removing anti-armor weapons from scouts isn't the way to do it.

I'm actually happy right now with the balance between scouts/gs/bombers. It just seems to me that in order for strike fighters to actually have a role, something has to be taken from one or more of the other ship classes to enable that to happen. As long as -something- can stop that CP bomber from getting to the satellite, would it be awful if it was the strike fighter's job instead of the scout's?

 

Strikes are never the best choice for anything, and they're not even robust enough to be a pretty good choice for 'jack-of-all-trades'-ing. The T2 scout is the jack. It can excel at killing bombers, killing gunships, killing strike fighters, killing other scouts, capping satellites. I'm not even saying it's OP, because it's not, but it's definitely able to handle most situations a GSF match presents.

 

The T2 scout is at its worst against an entrenched bomber stack, but even there a strike fighter is generally not the solution for countering that situation. Maybe it could be, if the strikes had adequate short range lasers. They have CP already (though on the T1 strike it's useless without the Armor component) but lack the necessary short range firepower to get under a satellite and deal with the bombers there. What if the T1 and T3 strike had BLC, and the T1 had Armor? I'd certainly consider using them in dom matches.

 

What role would you want to see strikes fulfill, ideally?

 

I know this thread is supposed to be about gutting the meta of all its competitive ships, but really, if all the ships were competitive, you wouldn't need to do that at all. I'd rather not see GSF get turned into Battlefront's dumbed down 'Space Combat Lite' approach.

 

Despon

[Ryuku-sama]

As long as turrets have armor, all ships should have some way to damage them. Additionally, this would mean a scout could never prevent a Charged Plating bomber from getting to a satellite, and that's their job, so that'd be a problem. Armor as a mechanic probably needs some tweaking, but removing anti-armor weapons from scouts isn't the way to do it.

 

Actually.. Hitting bombers and turrets could become strike role. And scout would be true interceptor countering strikes and gunships.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Ryuku-sama

[Kinsha]

Actually.. Hitting bombers and turrets could become strike role. And scout would be true interceptor countering strikes and gunships.

 

I'm not sure strikes have a big enough window to take down a bomber before it reaches a sat. The map that this comes to mind is kuat mesa B. The strike gets time to open fire on a CP bomber of course.. I'm just not sure it's big enough to actually down the bomber.

 

What if AP wasn't tied to BLC but instead was attached to Blaster over-charge? At the very least it would empower some of the less used weapons.

[Nemarus]

I'm not sure strikes have a big enough window to take down a bomber before it reaches a sat. The map that this comes to mind is kuat mesa B. The strike gets time to open fire on a CP bomber of course.. I'm just not sure it's big enough to actually down the bomber.

 

What if AP wasn't tied to BLC but instead was attached to Blaster over-charge? At the very least it would empower some of the less used weapons.

 

Don't feel like that helps much. T2 Scout is the only ship with BO. Quarrel and Jurgoran would no longer be able to help clear CP Bombers on a node.

 

Sure, a Scout could use Quads against CP Bombers, but honestly, under a node BLC are still king.

 

The moment you unlock BLC on a Sting is a ridiculous power jump, even without any upgrades. The second jump comes when you get AP, sure. But just having BLC makes you immediately outclass every other ship under a node.

[Lavaar]

Don't feel like that helps much. T2 Scout is the only ship with BO. Quarrel and Jurgoran would no longer be able to help clear CP Bombers on a node.

 

Sure, a Scout could use Quads against CP Bombers, but honestly, under a node BLC are still king.

 

The moment you unlock BLC on a Sting is a ridiculous power jump, even without any upgrades. The second jump comes when you get AP, sure. But just having BLC makes you immediately outclass every other ship under a node.

 

I have no problem with taking down node bombers in the t3 gunship, and I do not use BLC's.

[Kinsha]

Don't feel like that helps much. T2 Scout is the only ship with BO. Quarrel and Jurgoran would no longer be able to help clear CP Bombers on a node.

 

Sure, a Scout could use Quads against CP Bombers, but honestly, under a node BLC are still king.

 

The moment you unlock BLC on a Sting is a ridiculous power jump, even without any upgrades. The second jump comes when you get AP, sure. But just having BLC makes you immediately outclass every other ship under a node.

 

If BLC were ever re-balanced, I'd hope that the tracking/accuracy upgrades to BLC would be moved to the other side of the tree of AP. The current tree allows you to basically have the most accurate armor piercing weapon with the gravy at the top for having added bonus dmg vs shields or hull.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Kinsha

[caederon]

Don't feel like that helps much. T2 Scout is the only ship with BO. Quarrel and Jurgoran would no longer be able to help clear CP Bombers on a node.

...

But just having BLC makes you immediately outclass every other ship under a node.

The gunships still have slug rail, which is fine. Yeah, I use BLC to hit bombers under the node in dire emergencies with my T1gs, but that's exposing it to nearly certain death when I'd be far better off at range using railguns. If I'm chasing a bomber around a node at close range with BLC in my T1gs, it's out of desperation or because the bomber has no support.

 

Basically, what you are saying here is that the other short range lasers suck. And they do! They need to be brought up to snuff to give them a purpose and give people a compelling reason to choose them. If RFL and LLC were both good, viable choices, you would not see everyone choosing BLC. Make bad things better.

 

Despon

[Ramalina]

I'm sure I recall killing more than a few turrets with stock T1 and T2 scouts. It's not particularly difficult or dangerous, it's just slower.

 

A CP bomber would be extremely difficult to kill, but I'm not sure that killing CP bombers on the way to sats is something that scouts need to be able to do.

 

If you review the body of, "don't nerf anything in the current meta," posts a scout's job is to: kill strikes, kill gunships, kill scouts, kill bombers on the way to a sat, kill bombers established under a sat, kill bombers and gunships in a bomber/gunship ball, kill turrets, and to be the best or close to the best at all of those tasks, one has to wonder what the point of the other three classes of ships is supposed to be and how they're supposed to fit into the game's balance aside from as targets. The same applies to the T1 gunship.

 

I'd agree that to keep gameplay from becoming very static bomber wars some ships need to be able to kill armored targets quickly, but from a game mechanics standpoint there's no reason that any of the current meta ships aside from maybe the minelayer need to be the ones possessing that capability.

 

 

Going by descriptions and weapon availability all three strikes, the T2 gunship, the T3 scout, and the minelayer should all probably be vastly superior at killing armored targets than a T1 or T2 scout. If we look at the sort of superiority that scouts get in various styles of dogfighting, if you gave a similar margin of power to the builds that look like they're meant to excel at anti-armor roles then that means that any of those builds should be taking down a CP bomber on or off the node in about 25% to 50% of the time it would take a BLC T2 scout to do so, and be less demanding of pilot skill while performing that task. That would probably make them brokenly OP, because the builds that probably shouldn't be the best at anti-armor are so good at it that if you make something else even better at it you're likely to run into problems. This also applies to gunships, Slug railgun, and Plasma railgun, but it's not quite as bad in that situation because the charge time with a railgun slows things down a bit.

 

It's sort of a recurring thing where we get, "please just buff other ships so my favorite ship(s) don't have to be nerfed," but when a buff that would really bring other ships up to par with the meta ships is proposed you hear, "no, no, that's way too OP."

 

There are areas where the meta ships should retain significant superiority. The T1 gunship should be the most versatile artillery support ship, the T2 BLC (or if buffed LLC) scout should be the best at quickly shooting down an unarmored opponent in a dogfight, the T1 scout should be ridiculously mobile and have strong burst against a stationary target, it's ok for the meta ships to be fantastic at their specialties.

 

However, it's also ok for them to be nerfed in areas that aren't their specialties. The T2 scout doesn't need to be a strong contender for tankiest ship in GSF or to damage armored targets faster than ship builds with weapons that are meant to be ideal anti-armor weapons. The T1 gunship doesn't need to have the Slug railgun be so good that it can get by just fine without the other two railguns.

 

In some cases reallocation might be more appropriate than outright nerf. Given the option to edit GSF one of the things I'd try would be taking AP away from Slug and boosting its accuracy and/or rate of fire a bit, then give the initial damage of Plasma full AP and increase the effect of the debuff. I'd probably leave Ion as is. That would give a clear railgun for non-armored targets, a clear anti-armor railgun, and a clear anti-shield plus utility railgun. It would make choice of railgun more interesting and more important for both the T1 and T2 gunships. The T3 would suffer a bit, but would still retain its crown as the best gunship to fly when pressured by scouts.

 

In some cases that sort of narrowing a ship's capabilities on a specific specialty might require slight buffs to the area of specialization to balance out losses in generalist power.

 

I think that in terms of meta ships that trade off enough in other areas so that their proficiency in a specialization can be very powerful without causing problems the T1 scout, the T1 bomber, and the T2 bomber are all in a good place right now. The T3 gunship is kind of borderline. The T1 gunship has too much power budgeted into slug railgun, and not enough in plasma railgun. The T2 scout has a bit too much power in terms of defense and in terms of AP damage from BLCs. You'd still need to buff the underperforming ships substantially, but by changing the T1 gunship and T2 scout to excel at well defined specialties instead of generic play in pretty much any situation, you'd open up a space where you'd have a reason to want a newly buffed ship instead of just sticking with the same old ships.

 

The TL DR version is: preserve the core mission and play of the meta ships, but don't be afraid at the prospect of nerfing fringe benefits of the meta ships that occupy space in the specialties of underperforming ships. It would make it much more likely that buffing the underperforming ships/components in their areas of specialty would be enough to get them into the meta.

 

 

Paring the capabilities of a few ships to be a bit more specific to particular roles in a way that diversifies desirable ship choices is something I find appealing. I don't think it would take all that much of it to create new opportunities in the meta while preserving the core roles of all of the current meta ships.