Kinsha Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 While you can kill turrets with stock components, you will take some damage coming in. A BLC equipped ship will usually take a few shots as they close in for that first turret, but the 2nd and 3rd turret do drastically less if any damage due to LOS and close range BLC dmg. I also wouldn't mind seeing plasma railgun buffed slightly and taken away from the T1 GS and being exclusive to the T2 GS. As far as META ships go, I think broadening the META should not be just "buff strikes". Metaphorically speaking, they need to spread the butter over more of the toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caederon Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I also wouldn't mind seeing plasma railgun buffed slightly and taken away from the T1 GS and being exclusive to the T2 GS. As far as META ships go, I think broadening the META should not be just "buff strikes". Metaphorically speaking, they need to spread the butter over more of the toast. I think Plasma Railgun needs more than a slight buff to be competitive and interesting, but I would wholly support making it the unique defining feature of the T2 gs in the way that Ion Railgun is for the T1. It's not like it is in wide use on the T1 anyway, and having a viable and unique weapon for the T2 to field would make for a deeper set of ships to choose from. Buffing strikes is the simplest solution for broadening the meta because none of them are in it, it's a whole ship class essentially wasted against good competition. The T2 gs and to a lesser extent the T3 scout certainly would benefit from improvements and see playtime increase if they were better (or in the case of the T3 scout, had more than one trick). The T3 bomber could probably use a small boost, too, though I haven't given any thought to what would make it more competitive. People at least use it for the duration of matches, and it can be a nuisance, particularly stacked in with other bombers. Despon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinsha Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I think Plasma Railgun needs more than a slight buff to be competitive and interesting, but I would wholly support making it the unique defining feature of the T2 gs in the way that Ion Railgun is for the T1. It's not like it is in wide use on the T1 anyway, and having a viable and unique weapon for the T2 to field would make for a deeper set of ships to choose from. Buffing strikes is the simplest solution for broadening the meta because none of them are in it, it's a whole ship class essentially wasted against good competition. The T2 gs and to a lesser extent the T3 scout certainly would benefit from improvements and see playtime increase if they were better (or in the case of the T3 scout, had more than one trick). The T3 bomber could probably use a small boost, too, though I haven't given any thought to what would make it more competitive. People at least use it for the duration of matches, and it can be a nuisance, particularly stacked in with other bombers. Despon I agree plasma railgun needs some help.... probably a lot of it. Right now it does 1800 dmg after all the DoTs. I think giving it the same or swapping the slug rail gun's crit chance with plasma's might be an interesting change. It might make it a little too powerful though (plasma railgun...too powerful?). There's a good chance that each plasma rail gun hit would do over 2k dmg. If armor was ever re-balanced, I would like to see plasma rail guns melt armor buffed to something extraordinary... maybe close to what thermite missiles do. Then combine that with a slightly longer duration. Of course alot would have to change. Enough change so that a ship can use deflection armor without using a CP build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickDagles Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 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. I dunno, a pike with regen thrusters and barrel roll is actually pretty mobile. The only ships with more mobility than the pike are the scouts. The condor (pdive) and clarion (pdive) and even sledgehammer (pdive) are maybe a bit more mobile in a world with ion, but if you eliminate the ion then the Pike becomes the 4th most mobile ship. 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...) I like the idea of the strikes being the anti bomber ships. If the starguard had HLC and BLC I think it would immediately become a meta ship in domination. It would still get eaten alive by T1 GS, but that would be manageable in domination. It would be useless in deathmatch of course. If the pike had BLC and interdiction/cluster missiles/retro it would also probably become a meta ship in domination. Again, horrible choice in deathmatch. If anyone has ever played the condor with blc/cluster/interdiction, you know that it is pretty strong under the nodes. Add in the extra turning, shields, hull hp, and charged plating/deflection armor of the strike chassis and you've got a true beast for the nodes. I think part of the problem with balancing the game perfectly is that difference balance is needed for the two game modes. Edited February 2, 2016 by RickDagles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemarus Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 I don't think the two modes are that much of an issue. While it's cool for a shop to be useful in both modes, I don't think it's a requirement, especially since you can field five ships. Even if the first pass at balance made Strikes viable just for Domination, I'd be quite happy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, because Sting, Mangler and Jurgoran *can* be used successfully in either mode, that is further evidence that they are too powerful in too many respects. I know that is rough to say about the Mangler, since it does have built in weaknesses. I wish it was forced to pick just one railgun, so that it had to focus on either debuff/support (Ion) or lethality (Slug). That one change might well balance that ship entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caederon Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, because Sting, Mangler and Jurgoran *can* be used successfully in either mode, that is further evidence that they are too powerful in too many respects. As far as the Mangler is concerned, I see it more as a map-dependent choice than a mode-dependent one. The sightlines on both Kuat Mesas maps are bad for the T1 gs. In the TDM version, people often fly poorly and don't take advantage of the enormous amount of cover that exists. That situation and one where teams decide to build bomber towers behind rocks (and aren't good enough to make it work) are the only times the T1 gs excels. People making bad decisions isn't the gunships fault. Both Lost Shipyards maps are pretty good for the T1 gs. Dom especially has great sightlines between A and B, plenty of places for the T1 gs to set up and make a big difference. You don't want too many of them on your team, though. Denon is a tossup. It depends on the enemy composition whether it is worthwhile to pick a T1 gs. If they are stacking bombers, then yeah. If not, you're better off in a ship with more mobility and capacity to react to a changing situation. That does not seem like a particularly imbalanced situation. Despon Edited February 2, 2016 by caederon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeCKSEgai Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I coulda sworn I posted in here but I guess it never posted. If you were to eliminate the sting/ff, rampart/razorwire and quarrel/mangler you wouldn't see as dramatic a change as one would hope. Now that ion aoe would be out of the picture, mine/sentry spam becomes that much stronger in legion/warcarrier. You might see strikers more but alot of scout pilots would resort to blackbolt/novadive. Gunships would still be around regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts