Fixing GSF [LONG POST]

[Greezt]

I have been GSFing for a while now and I believe I understand the game mechanics well enough to comment on the various components with regards to balancing them. No one who has flown for a long time will claim that all ships can be brought into a serious match and be expected to perform on the same level. I think it is mainly because of how certain components outshine others in too many ways, leaving little choice as to which ones are taken.

 

Without further ado, here are my ideas for fixes, starting with components and moving on to ships. Critical fixes (bugs) are labeled in red. Some of the ideas here are mine alone, other ideas come from discussion with friends. In either case, these buffs are what I think is required in order to make more components and ships viable.

 

Missiles:

 

General fixes:

 

Missiles (all weapons that require a lock on their target) are now divided into three categories – short, medium and long range. Short range missiles have 5000m range baseline (before upgrades), take 1.5 seconds to lock on to their target baseline, and have a 3 second cooldown baseline. Medium range missiles have 10,000m range baseline, take 2 seconds to lock onto their target baseline, and have a 6 seconds cooldown baseline. Long range missiles have 15,000m range baseline, take 2.5 seconds to lock onto their target baseline, and have a 9 second cooldown baseline.

 

Additionally, short range missiles all have a 24-degree firing arc and cluster missile speed baseline, medium range missiles have a 20-degree firing arc and concussion missile speed baseline, and long-range missiles have a 16-degree firing arc and torpedo speed baseline.

 

Reasoning:

 

Currently, missiles are underpowered in GSF. The only truly viable missiles are clusters, and only because they can be spammed faster than ships can break them. Even they have trouble with certain builds (powerdive/distortion field scouts can break three volleys in a row). I think increasing the range for medium and long-range missiles will make it harder to escape them, and reducing the cooldown will mean that after one or two misses you will land a hit. At the very least, your opponents will be forced to respect the fact that you can keep them under pressure for as long as needed.

 

Increasing the firing arc for long range missiles should make them more viable against targets more maneuverable than bombers. Due to their long lock on and cooldown, they still won’t be a real threat to scouts and gunships, but they will land on strikes (as well as scouts or gunships who have lost their breaks to other missiles).

 

Cluster missiles:

 

No fixes required.

 

Interdiction missiles:

 

Now considered short range missiles. Baseline interdiction effect reduced to 4 seconds (down from 8 seconds), T2 upgrade (Reduced Reload Speed) reduced to 0.5 seconds (down from 3 seconds), T3 upgrade (Increased Slow Duration) reduced to 1 second (down from 2 seconds).

 

Reasoning:

 

Currently, interdiction missiles are useless. They are very powerful, but only situationally. There are many better and safer ways to slow down a target – ion railgun, interdiction mines/drones, even concussion missiles. For such a short range these missiles are impossible to land on anything more than a bomber, and if you’re getting that close to a bomber you may as well kill it. Side note – another fix would be renaming the T2 upgrade to “Reduced Reload Time”. The current name does not reflect on the upgrade.

 

Ion missiles:

Now considered short range missiles.

 

Reasoning:

 

Ion missiles are the worst missile in the game currently. They deal low damage compared to their lock on and reload time, it’s never better to use them over your blasters. Their power drain effect is pitiful. If they were to benefit of the shorter reload and lock on that short-range missiles will get, they would be much more useful for a reliable power drain and keeping shields down. In return for this buff they will be sacrificing range.

 

Concussion missiles:

 

Now considered medium range missiles.

 

Reasoning:

 

Concussion missiles are quite close to being perfect in my opinion. They have decent damage, decent lock on time, decent reload time and are highly customizable. Their downfall is that they’re impossible to land and most ships – mostly because most ships have two missile breaks. The extra range will enable them to land even on a ship that has barreled out of range, and if strikes will be more viable they will be an obvious target for these missiles.

 

EMP missiles:

 

Now considered medium range missiles.

 

Reasoning:

 

EMP are meant to clear satellites from bomber spam, but ion railguns are a more reliable tool for that job. The increased range and ability to land them more often should make them better suited for the job. Combined with the fact that they disable systems, this buff will make them almost required in domination, instead of being a slightly amusing missile to be used in lopsided matches.

 

Sabotage probe:

 

Now considered medium range missiles. T5 upgrade (Speed Reduced) no longer removes all other effects of the probe. Base effect duration reduced to 2.5 seconds (down from 6), T3 upgrade (Reduced Cooldown) reduced to 2 seconds (down from 5).

 

Reasoning:

 

The T5 upgrade is a bug, and should be addressed. Making sabo probes medium range would make them an actual counter to scouts – they will be possible to land on them making the evasion reduction worthwhile. The nerfs to duration and cooldown should balance out their viability.

 

Torpedoes (proton + thermite):

 

Now considered long range missiles. Thermite locks no longer randomly break while inside firing arc.

 

Reasoning:

 

Torpedoes are meant to be heavy ordinance. They are, but as they currently are set, they are impossible to and even on bombers without them going AFK. The additional range will allow them to threaten any ship (even if they most probably won’t land on anything but a bomber), giving them additional utility).

 

----------

 

 

Primary weapons:

 

Rapid fire laser cannons:

 

Range increased to 500m, 3,000m and 6,000m. Accuracy increased to 110%, 95%, 85%.

 

Reasoning:

 

RFLC require an immense uptime on their target to be of any use, and even then, they don’t really offer any advantage over the other short-range blasters. They deal less DPS and damage per shot than both other options, have worse tracking than BLC and worse accuracy than LLC. There is no reason to take them in that category. However, were they moved to the long-range category (currently consisting of only HLC) they would offer a new option – a large firing arc, good tracking and high sustained DPS. This would make them good against any non-armored target, and HLC would cover the other options. Additionally, they would be viable in close-range while HLC lack in that area.

 

Ion cannons:

 

Range increased to 500m, 3,000m and 6,000m.

 

Reasoning:

 

Ion cannons have incredible DPS vs. shields, but that’s not enough. The problem is that by the time you’ve managed to get into range to use them, most likely your target’s shields are already almost gone rendering them obsolete. Increasing their range will mean that they can be used to clear out shields before landing any missiles or finishing off the target with close-range weaponry.

 

LLC:

 

Accuracy increased to 110%, 95%, 90%.

 

Reasoning:

 

LLC offer the highest DPS in the game in theory, but most blasters will out-DPS them in practice. They lack accuracy at range, and close-range the tracking penalty will often offset their increased accuracy. As it stands, BLC have higher accuracy than them from 2,250m and outside that range you’re better off using a mid-range blaster. With this accuracy fix they should be a viable choice for all their range – making them a short to medium-range blaster in contrast to BLC – a short to point blank-blaster.

 

All other blasters are fine as they are, and require no tweaking.

 

----------

 

Railguns:

 

Plasma railgun:

 

T3 upgrade (Reduced Power Draw) is replaced by an upgrade named “Reduced Evasion and Damage Reduction”. This upgrade reduces target evasion by 5% and target damage reduction by 10%.

 

Reasoning:

 

Damage over time is already quite weak in GSF when it is dealt to shields, because shields regenerate on their own and the damage can be avoided by turning your ship around. This railgun should offer more team utility for the tradeoff it requires – lower accuracy than the other options and lower effective damage. This upgrade promises that plasma shots will always be at least partially effective against any ship regardless of which upgrade was chosen in the 4th tier. The 5% evasion debuff will also act like a tracking mitigation (which other railguns get).

 

Ion railgun:

 

T5 upgrade “Reactor Disruption” slows target’s regeneration by 55% (as stated in the tooltip, down from 100% as is currently the situation). T5 upgrade “Engine Disruption” slows down target to 55% (as stated in the tooltip and up from 40% as is currently the situation), and is effective for 6 seconds (as Is currently the situation and down from 12 seconds stated in the tooltip).

 

Reasoning:

 

The ion railgun is so powerful right now because it can guarantee a kill on almost all ships. It drains more than half the power pool in one shot, prevents regeneration of said power pools, and it can clear mines/drones as well as deal damage via AoE. I think that fixing the regeneration bug will allow components that are meant to be soft counters to ion drain (rotational thrusters, fortress shields) to be more effective in doing their job. The slow effect is currently only 6 seconds, and I feel that is enough. 12 seconds of slow are too much for such an easy weapon to use, and are usually death sentence to any ship hit by them (since they outlast counters such as distortion field).

 

Slug railgun:

 

T4 upgrade “Reduced Power Draw” is swapped with T3 upgrade “Ignore Armor”.

 

Reasoning:

 

The slug currently has it all – high accuracy, armor ignore and one-shot power against scouts (or almost any ship with damage overcharge). This swap should make it a more specialized weapon – either strong against high-evasion targets, or against armored targets, but not both. It will make plasma railguns more desirable too, as their debuffs will compliment this railgun’s power.

 

----------

Systems abilities:

 

Blaster overcharge:

 

Ability duration increased by 3 seconds baseline.

 

Reasoning:

 

BO is a very specialized ability even now – it sacrifices accuracy, evasion and effect on secondary weapons for a boost in raw blaster damage. Its short uptime means that it cannot be reliably used even against gunships, because a good gunship will simply move out of the way and the cooldown will have been wasted. This slight uptime buff should allow for the ability to be more forgiving when used even against experienced players.

 

EMP field:

 

Range is increased to 4,500m baseline (as stated in the tooltip and up from 3000m as is currently the situation).

 

Reasoning:

 

I’m not sure this is enough to make this systems ability viable, but even if not currently it can be used as little more than a trolling novelty – the range is too small to disable mines reliably, it does not even cover a satellite. I might consider increasing the range to 5,000m baseline.

 

Sensor beacon:

 

Sensor beacons are now indestructible, meaning they only die once the scout that has deployed them is dead (or if the timer on them runs out). T3 upgrade (Increased Duration) is moved to be a T5 upgrade instead of “Reinforced Beacon” (now redundant). T4 upgrade “Sensor Jamming” is moved to be the T3 upgrade (where “Increased Duration” was). The new T4 upgrade is called “Target Prediction”, and it reduces the evasion of all nearby enemies by an additional 5%.

 

Reasoning:

 

The detection capabilities of sensor beacons are redundant currently, ship sensors can do without them even before counting targeting telemetry on scouts. Even were it useful, sensor beacons can be easily killed rendering the scout deploying them nothing but a gimped version of itself. With the beacons becoming indestructible, they will be of use in any place where ships tend to group up (such as on nodes) for their debuffs. The increased suppression range will make them even better for defending nodes.

 

Missile sentry drone:

 

Missiles fired from the drone are now true concussion missiles – meaning they have 10,000m range and deal 1,055 damage baseline (as concussions will be if buffed).

 

Reasoning:

 

This drone is not a real option currently. The range is short on both blasters and missiles, and even if the missiles land by mistake they deal a pitiful amount of damage. Scouts can simply ignore the drone while focusing on the bomber. Increasing the range will create a threat to incoming ships from farther away, and the damage will no longer be something to shrug off.

 

Ion mines:

 

Mines now deal 1,250 shield damage baseline.

 

Reasoning:

 

These mines barely deal more damage than concussion mines, and their drain (while nice) is certainly not very strong. I feel that increasing their drain too much will make them too strong, so my solution is turning them into a better shield counter by increasing the amount of damage they deal. This may not be enough to fix them, in which case I think their T5 effects will need a buff.

 

Combat command, Repair probes and Remote slicing:

 

Range on these abilities is increased to 10,000m baseline. Duration of Remote slicing is increased by 3 seconds.

 

Reasoning:

 

Combat command and Repair probes are already hard to use to benefit your team because you cannot know the distance from your teammates. Giving these abilities 10,000m will ensure that lag and other interferences won’t be as detrimental to these effects. Remote slicing needs an additional buff because it is weak to begin with even considering a long range on it. The shield drain is hardly there, the only real use it offers is the engine/shield disable.

 

All other systems abilities are fine as they currently are.

 

----------

 

Engines:

 

Interdiction drive:

 

Base cost of interdiction drive is reduced by 10 (at least). Cooldown reduced to 30 seconds.

 

Reasoning:

 

Taking this maneuver means sacrificing a break on most ships. Even if you take it on a ship without breaks (T1 or 2 bombers) it still costs a lot per use, has a long cooldown and barely produces any effect worth mentioning for that price. It’s hard to know just how much the price should be reduced because there is no indicator of how much it costs. I feel like it costs probably around 50 engine power baseline, in which case it could probably use with an even larger cost reduction (15 engine power less than current, perhaps).

 

Rotational thrusters:

 

Increase accuracy on all weapons by 5% for 5 seconds after use passively. T3 upgrade “Increased Turning Rate” now increases turning rate passively by 15% (up from the current 10%).

 

Reasoning:

 

Like interdiction drive, taking this maneuver sacrifices a break on the gunship taking it. However, it also sacrifices mobility. It’s not a hard maneuver for a scout to negate, either – they can just boost behind the gunship and turn around again. The accuracy increase will allow to shoot at higher evasion targets, making this a better offensive option than other maneuvers. The increased turning will mean that even gunships without thrusters will be able to turn considerably better with this choice than with regular maneuvers such as barrel roll.

 

Weapon power converter:

 

T3 upgrade increases either weapon or engine power by 25% (up from 15% currently).

 

Reasoning:

 

I am not sure this will be enough. The main problem with this maneuver (apart for the mobility and break loss it suffers from like the aforementioned ones) is that ion railguns can shut it down by draining both weapon and engine power. Hopefully with a larger pool this maneuver will be a more viable choice for gunships.

 

Koiogran turn:

 

Increases engine power regeneration rate by 50% for 6 seconds after use.

 

Reasoning:

 

Koiogran turn is a weak move – it offers nothing either offensively or defensively other maneuvers aren’t better at, and it’s not even good for mobility. This boost should allow it to become a superior defensive maneuver because it will now have a counter for ion weapons, and it will allow boosting farther away. In case the user decides to stay in the same spot (for example, on a contested node) they will still have the option.

Snap turn:

 

Increases engine speed by 30% for 6 seconds after use.

 

Reasoning:

 

Like Koiogran turn, this maneuver offers nothing other options aren’t better at. Giving it a speed boost will make it better for escaping tight situations. Having a shorter cooldown that barrel roll will make it a viable contender for mobility.

 

----------

 

Shields:

 

Shield projector:

 

Base effective radius increased to 10,000m. Base restoration increased to 40%.

 

Reasoning:

 

Like similar systems abilities, it’s very hard to know whether you’re helping your team with such an ability. However, this ability is even more limited – you can only help 5 team members max. Increasing the range should help deal with that problem. Increasing the amount of shields restored should both make the ability more viable and help mitigate some of the loss that the ship with the ability has to endure – 20% less shields.

 

Overcharged shield:

 

Shield passive capacity is +60% of base (up from 40% as is now).

 

Reasoning:

 

Overcharged shields offer very little over charged plating. The slight benefit in shields is all but worthless against other bombers and gunships, and most missiles pierce shields as well. They’re not a horrible choice currently, but they need a slight buff to make them a clear superior option when shield piercing is not as abundant.

 

Fortress shields:

 

T3 upgrade “Increased Duration” is replaced by an upgrade called “Reduced Cooldown” which reduces the cooldown of fortress shields by an additional 5 seconds.

 

Reasoning:

 

Fortress shields are extremely weak in most situations. Many players fall into the trap of thinking that they can tank damage with them, when in fact they’re becoming easy kills by sitting still. Even experienced players won’t use them except in matches where they know they won’t need to move a lot (gunship chess). Reducing the cooldown will make these shields good for mitigating unavoidable incoming damage more frequently, and hopefully player will realize they don’t have to sit for the full duration of the shield uptime.

 

Quick-charge shields:

 

Base shield loss from these shields is 20% (down from 30% as is right now). Base cooldown is reduced to 20 seconds (down from 30 seconds as is right now), and the T3 upgrade “Reduced Cooldown” reduces the shield cooldown by 5 seconds (down from 10 seconds as is right now).

 

Reasoning:

 

The mobility buff these shields offer is not enough to make them a viable choice. They bring a huge loss in survivability, and they don’t mitigate burst damage at all (most of the damage in GSF). A shorter cooldown should allow them to do that better, and the larger shield power pool may help players using them make the escape these shields are supposed to help in making.

 

----------

----------

 

Ship changes:

 

I don’t think any ship requires a drastic change, not even strikes. They are the one class that requires a change as a whole of course, but while many other players have suggested adding new components to buff strikes, I feel that swapping around their minor components and component choices they have available should make them worthy of flying in a competitive match.

 

One change I do think they need is giving them the engine efficiency of scouts. Meaning, their boost activation cost and cost per second should be 16.7% cheaper than that of bombers and gunships. They will still be slower than scouts and less maneuverable, but they will be more mobile than they currently are. That should help them a lot, because they rely on CQC as much as scouts do.

 

Now, for specific buffs:

 

FT-8 Star Guard/F-T6 Rycer:

 

Has access to all primary weapons. This means it gets access to BLC, LLC, and LC in addition to those it can currently access. Magazine is replaced with an armor minor component.

 

Reasoning:

 

This ship is meant to be the premier blaster ship. It’s quite strange that it doesn’t get access to the best close-range weapons (BLC) or even to their runner up (LLC). It does not require a magazine, it never runs out of power even if you take munition capacity extender. If someone feels that they need more juice, they can easily choose weapon power converter as their engine maneuver.

 

FT-6 Pike/F-T 2 Quell:

 

Has access to all missiles. This means it gets access to interdiction missiles, sabotage probes and thermite torpedoes in addition to those it can currently access. Capacitor is replaced with a reactor minor component. Weapon power converter is replaced with Retro thrusters.

 

Reasoning:

 

Just as the T1 strike is meant to be a blaster ship, this ship is meant to be a missile boat. As such, it should have all options available for maximum customization. The capacitor, while nice, is unnecessary on a ship which is supposed to deal damage with secondaries. A reactor will serve it much better. Weapon power converter is likewise redundant on a ship that only uses its primary weapons as a utility. Retro thrusters will allow for more missiles to be landed and will generally make this ship a scarier frontal offence ship.

 

NovaDive/S-12 Blackbolt:

 

Capacitor is replaced with a reactor minor component.

 

Reasoning:

 

Scouts are in less need of a capacitor than other ships, because their system abilities grant them a huge offensive increase already. Losing it will reduce the offensive output of the T1 scout, but it will be able to use the engine power converter much more easily, and will be able to shield tank some damage too.

 

Sledgehammer/B-5 Decimus:

 

Magazine is replaced with an armor minor component. Now has the option for missile sentry drone as a systems component.

 

Reasoning:

 

The T3 bomber is lacking in defensive capability and area denial compared to other bombers. The area denial lack is fine if it’s meant to be more of a jousting ship, but low defensives mean it’s food for more other ships (including strike fighters even in their currently weakened state). If it gets an armor component, charged plating can now be safely used. The offensive output should also be increased due to the buff in secondary components it will get. Missile sentry drone is a good option on this ship, to compliment cluster missiles.

 

All other ships are in my opinion either fine right now, or will be fine once components are changed as suggested.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Greezt

[Lavaar]

Excellent and very comprehensive post,

 

Bravo!

 

I would also like to bring up here a boost to the strike fighter's ability to strafe. It would give it an advantage if its strafe was faster and more responsive than other craft and would make it easier to stay on target and keep the guns pointing where they mean to do the most business.

[DarthTyranid]

Your optimism that anything might ever change is heart breaking.

[Storm-Cutter]

"Rebellions Are Built On Hope"

 

Fascinating read. - However I have to point out that crap weapons, or best upgrades can be chosen by either team. It is at least balanced in that way.

 

Essential reading for anyone starting out, or veterans who are stuck in their ways struggling to make their sub-optimal choices work.

 

Let's hope the roadmap includes something for GSF this time around.

 

Great work OP. TYSM.

[phalczen]

I was thinking the other day about the type 2 strike. With access to HLC, charged plating, and deflection armor, it isn't completely useless for diving into a bomber nest, at least on paper. It has nearly all the damage reduction of a type 1 bomber to deal with the mine spam, and it has barrel roll to get away from the seeker mines. It has more tanking ability than a type 1 scout (with its EMP field) or a type 3 scout (which can also equip EMP missiles like the T2 strike), but with truly anemic EMP missiles, its ability to deal with those mines once it infiltrates a nest is limited, and in nearly all cases inferior to Ion railguns. Your suggestions to improve EMP missiles might enable the "de-entrenching" role for T2 strikes, so I like it. I concur with your suggestion for the T2 strike to change the magazine to a reactor to enable to tank a bit better. I like your idea of retros, to optimize lock on times, which may help the type 2 strike in TDM, but I feel like all strike classes suffer big time against ion rail. So, perhaps give it the engine option of power dive to improve its mobility further against gunships and the ion rail gun (with or without your suggested nerfs), and cluster spam, which would help it in both game modes. In that scenario, then, you will need your buffed T1 strike (with its broader array of primary weapons) to be able to dogfight and perhaps neutralize the T2 strike. T2 scouts are still another great choice for all the reasons we know.

 

It seems like you think that by fixing missiles, that will fix most of the impotence that strikes suffer from. That may be true. While you do also suggest they get the engine efficiency of scouts, as well as ditching magazines in favor of reactors for the T1 and T2, I would agree with you that strikes are impotent largely because we live in a two-missile break world. We saw as much when the tier 3 upgrade for DF was bugged. Many people (especially in that 2-year old thread) argued you could buff strikes to overpoweredness and it would still be ok for a while. I do wonder if getting the engine efficiency of scouts is needed if every strike could have power dive (types 1&2 don't) and every strike could have a thruster minor component (type 3 doesn't), but I'm of the feeling that overbuffing is needed for now.

 

If a strike is meant to be a jack of all trades but master of none, it needs competitive options to deal with all the major scenarios in GSF, even if slightly inferior to another class. Your suggested buff to EMP missile will not supplant Ion rail as the premier way to clear bomber nests, and good gunship slugging is still the best way to de-entrench a bomber circling a sat with or without mines deployed. Boosting missile effectiveness in general and RFLs in particular will help strikes deal with the pervasiveness of evasion stacking and the world of double missile breaks. A buffed strike won't be the best way to take out a gunship, but it shouldn't be food either.

 

Your suggestions to boost QCS and RFL, two stock components on the two starter ships, will go a long way to improving the new player experience. I also like your k-turn improvements since its another stock component (on the T1 strike and T2 scout). I'm not suggesting a new player to GSF should be able to top the leaderboard in a category, but they shouldn't feel quite as useless as they do right now.

 

Thanks for this.

[merovejec]

Wow, very nice post!

[MaximilianPower]

Very good post. I can't argue with any of the suggestions. I suspect that even with a lot of these component changes, strikes might still find themselves a bit short of meta - but they'd be closer. At worst, a step in the right direction.

 

Your optimism that anything might ever change is heart breaking.

 

I'm fairly certain that OP has no expectation of actual change. No veteran does. That's been the case for the past few years (ever since the "buff strikes" megathread fizzled out) - over which time this forum has become a hotbed of theorycrafting and what-if scenarios (plus the occasional nerf gunships!/nerf bombers!/nerf scouts! rants). Nothing wrong with that. Personally, I expect nothing, but hope to one day be proven wrong.

[DownloadStarter]

It would be unwise to give a good strike pilot ions and BLC. You'd be looking at less-than-a-second kills, which I don't believe the T1 strike was ever meant to do on a consistent basis to player targets. Throw clusters on top of that? Even bombers (meant to eat lots of damage from what I can see) melt fast.

 

I'm of the opinion that would not be a positive change. I rather like seeing ships fill situational roles, as it encourages team gameplay. Let's face it: If we were interested in the solo experience we'd be flying in some other game, right?

 

Personally, I think GSF's rather nice as it is. The only change I'd suggest regards the practice of "ion tapping", but at this time I'm not exactly sure what I'd do to change it. (Remove arc effect? Is it back to where you need a full charge to apply max-level debuffs? Do debuffs still apply on the chain hits to surrounding teammates? Etc.) I enjoy your enthusiasm for the game mode!

[Greezt]

I would also like to bring up here a boost to the strike fighter's ability to strafe. It would give it an advantage if its strafe was faster and more responsive than other craft and would make it easier to stay on target and keep the guns pointing where they mean to do the most business.

 

I completely forgot about that suggestion, I think it's a great idea as well. I was trying to keep the OP as simple as possible because I feel adding special 'strike-only' components or such makes for a cumbersome fix. I'd love to see strikes having something special going for them though.

 

Your optimism that anything might ever change is heart breaking.

 

There is always hope.

 

MaximillianPower actually gave exactly the answer I would have. I don't really have hope, but I did see the devs turn some attention to GSF (either via unassembled components, or datamined stuff that can't be discussed here). I think now is as good a time as ever to remind them that some fixes are in order. Maybe it'll pay off.

 

Fascinating read. - However I have to point out that crap weapons, or best upgrades can be chosen by either team. It is at least balanced in that way.

 

Yes, but I wasn't talking about balancing the game as having even teams - that would be possible even if only a single ship with a single build would be meta. Everyone flies that ship, and problem solved.

 

I meant balancing components so that you can create a viable build with each one available - no trap components, no components that are only good for trolling. A balanced component would have its weaknesses and strengths, but it would be never be a horrible choice in all situations.

 

 

...I feel like all strike classes suffer big time against ion rail. So, perhaps give it the engine option of power dive to improve its mobility further against gunships and the ion rail gun (with or without your suggested nerfs), and cluster spam, which would help it in both game modes.

 

I did not want to suggest giving the T2 strike PD for two reasons:

• PD is already abundant, and it's the natural counter to the T2 strike. Having it on it too would make one more ship missile-resistant. If strikes were to be buffed, they would be the no.1 target for missiles, and that's how it should be.
  
• If strikes get the engine efficiency buff suggested (as scouts do now) ion would be less of a problem. Certainly id quick-charge shields are buffed and the ion reactor disable is nerfed, there will be enough counters to ions to make this issue quite small, I think.
  

 

As for cluster spam, the T2 strike already has two counters - CP and directionals.

 

Your suggested buff to EMP missile will not supplant Ion rail as the premier way to clear bomber nests, and good gunship slugging is still the best way to de-entrench a bomber circling a sat with or without mines deployed.

 

I actually rethought that buff, and I think that if anything EMP might need a nerf to the debuff uptimes after that buff. You'd be able to keep any ship on a node/in a nest under 100% systems and shield/engine disable without much trouble (you can land an EMP every 8.1 seconds with the buff and Rapid Reload). Combine that with 11k range, and I really do think that EMP would be an excellent way to clear nodes.

 

Ion GS, for comparison in spoiler:

 

Mines take hull damage and have 150 hitpoints. ion AoE does half damage, and ion does quarter damage against hulls.

1850 × 0.25 × 0.5 × x = 150, where 'x' is the percentage of a full charge you need to kill a mine. → x ~=0.65.

0.65 × 2.7 + 0.92 = ~2.68 -- the optimal time it takes an ion GS to clear mines.

 

 

 

Remember that, while an ion GS ion 3 times for each EMP, the ion GS can only clear 3 mines that way (or 4, if the first shot is on a mine) while EMP clear out all the mines and also disable drones/turrets. I'm not suggesting EMP will suddenly replace ions as the best way to clear mines, but I think they'll become pretty much necessary to clear nests and bombers. They'll definitely be a more reliable choice than they are now, and I think they'll not be a bad option ever.

 

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it!

[Stellarcrusade]

I agree that fighters should be given BLC to make them more viable. But really battle-scouts would still be better so that doesn't completely solve the problem. To fully solve it, we remove BLC from scouts. Really now fighters are less manuverable, slower(range) and missing the firepower that would define it as a "fighter". Whereas the battle-scout (which shouldn't really be a thing) (flash/sting - blc/pods) has top manuverability, range, and firepower in dog-fighting. Makes no sense to give 3 "top attributes" to one class, I think that's why fighters are not very viable. In a scout its super easy to fly up into the 3k of an opponent, press both mouse buttons, 1 second or so he is dead, no chance for opponent in many cases.

 

The goal would be to make fighters an actual choice, not leaving scouts as the obvious choice. If you choose fighter you should be able to hit harder if you can get into range (harder for a fighter to get into close range than a scout), but if you choose scout you can out-range the fighter and be more maneuverable.

 

So those who dis-agree with this, make sure your alternate solution solves the problem such that if you are choosing a ship the fighter and the flashy/sting is not a clear choice. Meaning neither would be your go-to-ship but both would be able to stand on its own against the other and you'd find yourself choosing them 50/50. Otherwise you have no alternative solution and are just afraid this would cause the gravy-train to end. ;-)

 

Good post OP. I like much of it, just the one suggestion to enhance it.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Stellarcrusade

[Greezt]

I agree that fighters should be given BLC to make them more viable. But really battle-scouts would still be better so that doesn't completely solve the problem. To fully solve it, we remove BLC from scouts. Really now fighters are less manuverable, slower(range) and missing the firepower that would define it as a "fighter". Whereas the battle-scout (which shouldn't really be a thing) (flash/sting - blc/pods) has top manuverability, range, and firepower in dog-fighting. Makes no sense to give 3 "top attributes" to one class, I think that's why fighters are not very viable. In a scout its super easy to fly up into the 3k of an opponent, press both mouse buttons, 1 second or so he is dead, no chance for opponent in many cases.

 

The goal would be to make fighters an actual choice, not leaving scouts as the obvious choice. If you choose fighter you should be able to hit harder if you can get into range (harder for a fighter to get into close range than a scout), but if you choose scout you can out-range the fighter and be more maneuverable.

 

So those who dis-agree with this, make sure your alternate solution solves the problem such that if you are choosing a ship the fighter and the flashy/sting is not a clear choice. Meaning neither would be your go-to-ship but both would be able to stand on its own against the other and you'd find yourself choosing them 50/50. Otherwise you have no alternative solution and are just afraid this would cause the gravy-train to end. ;-)

 

Good post OP. I like much of it, just the one suggestion to enhance it.

 

I don't think taking BLC from the T2 is necessary. A scout is meant to be the most maneuverable ship in the game, and BLC are the correct weapon for such a ship. True, a BLC/pods build will still be the highest burst build in the game, but BLC/ion cannons will be quite a strong build too. You can strip the shields off a scout in the T1 with that build before the scout ever makes it into range, and BLC will offer force the scout to outmaneuver the strike. Combined with a strike's superior shields and hull, that might be enough to make the difference.

 

In general, I don't think strikes were meant to be close-quarter killing machines. They are mid-range fighters, and can if pressed hold their own in CQC.

 

As for choosing a strike over a T2 scout, here are some examples:

 

1. killing bombers. A T1 strike with BLC will be a much safer choice than the T2 scout (due to CP/directional, and a range advantage). You'd sacrifice some burst for tankiness, but you'll still have enough power to down a bomber quickly with BLC alone (before considering long rang blasters).
   
2. while a scout will still be better at killing a single bomber, the T2 strike will be able to keep constant pressure on a node with EMP/concussions. It will also be able to control any ship handily with ion/interdiction missiles chained.
   

Edited May 9, 2017 by Greezt

[Ramalina]

An interesting set of suggestions.

 

 

Longer range and stronger effects on hit are nice, but if the missile isn't hitting, or even being launched, then any such changes are really irrelevant.

 

A beeping sound does no more damage at 10 or 15 km than it does at 7 or 10 km.

 

You partially address this in terms of some missiles with respect to reload times, but the torpedoes definitely, and the medium range missiles just slightly, need help in terms of lock times as well.

 

With a medium or long range missile, a bomber despite its slow movement has enough time to boost roughly 3.5 to 5.5 km during the lock on period and if at any point it places a LOS obstacle between itself and the launch vehicle the missile doesn't even get launched.

 

If you want medium and long range missiles to matter in terms of ships being competitive, then those missiles have to have a reasonable chance of actually hitting a competitive pilot.

 

There's some time period between 2 and 3 seconds (or maybe even under 2 seconds if you seriously think the current incarnation of interdiction missiles is too hard to land), where if the lock time exceeds that period the missile is no longer a serious threat in competitive play because even in the least mobile ships there is plenty of time to break the lock with LOS. Consider how difficult it is to hit a skilled bomber with a mastered concussion missile. That's a 2.6 s lock against a target with zero breaks where getting within range and keeping the target inside the firing arc are not problematic. What's problematic is finishing the lock before the bomber gains enough angle around an object to break the lock with LOS.

 

Compared to other secondary weapons missiles are weak even if you assume that they pretty much always get launched and pretty much always hit. Your changes do a lot to make them stronger if they do launch and hit, but as long as the changes needed to make them launch and hit don't happen, being harder hitting and longer ranged doesn't really matter.

 

 

 

 

A typo in your Plasma Railgun changes? A tier 4 upgrade has a title mentioning Reduced Accuracy, but the effect mentions Reduced Evasion. I'd think Reduced Accuracy and Reduced Evasion would sort of cancel each other out.

 

 

 

A comment on the T2 strike recommended changes. Even if you take some lock time reductions and add that to the rest of your missile changes, the T2 is still going to be doing the bulk of its damage with primary weapons. That being the case, I'd recommend dropping the magazine for the reactor instead of the capacitor. Peak DPS matters a lot more than how long you can sustain fire in GSF. The loss from losing the capacitor wouldn't be huge, and there are edge cases where at certain points on the timeline the magazine is better, provided it holds missile ammo, but in general the capacitor is going to be the stronger component. Even for cluster missiles, the sustained DPS for missile components is astonishingly low compared to primary weapons, so something has to be worth quite a bit balance wise to be worth trading away buffs to primary weapon damage.

 

 

 

I think the recommendations as a whole probably don't change enough to make the currently uncompetitive ships competitive, or even really change the existing meta much.

 

It is a tremendous package of quality of life improvements for the non-meta ships though. Enough so that I think for the most part people wouldn't feel that they're suffering if they picked a non-meta ship for a change of pace. Sort of like if you were running 100m sprints with a handicap of wearing hiking boots and a 20 kg backpack and the rules changed to allow you to drop the backpack. You're still not gonna medal at the Olympics wearing boots, but you might have a shot at the local amateur events. Plus it hurts a lot less.

 

The changes would also open up a lot of build diversity at the "not quite competitive" level.

 

Oh, almost forgot. The QQ threads about interdiction missiles being as spammable as clusters would be both epic and hilarious.

[Greezt]

If you want medium and long range missiles to matter in terms of ships being competitive, then those missiles have to have a reasonable chance of actually hitting a competitive pilot.

 

A reasonable point. I'll admit, originally when I thought of these changes I thought that bombers should be able to avoid missiles while behind cover. I don't know why though - they're not immune to railguns, which deal a heavy amount of burst damage too. So I adjusted the OP. Lock on times are now 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 for short range, medium range and long range missiles respectively.

 

There's some time period between 2 and 3 seconds (or maybe even under 2 seconds if you seriously think the current incarnation of interdiction missiles is too hard to land)...

 

I wasn't clear perhaps about interdiction missiles, I meant that on the current ship they're installed and against the current targets for that ship, they're pretty much impossible to land. Even then it's not because of the lock on time but rather the reload time.

 

I do feel that concussions and torps should be harder to land so as to ensure they're not destroying scouts. The heavier missiles should be reserved for gunships and bombers. Perhaps strikes too, if they become meta-worthy.

 

A typo in your Plasma Railgun changes? A tier 4 upgrade has a title mentioning Reduced Accuracy, but the effect mentions Reduced Evasion. I'd think Reduced Accuracy and Reduced Evasion would sort of cancel each other out.

 

Fixed, thanks!

 

A comment on the T2 strike recommended changes. Even if you take some lock time reductions and add that to the rest of your missile changes, the T2 is still going to be doing the bulk of its damage with primary weapons. That being the case, I'd recommend dropping the magazine for the reactor instead of the capacitor. Peak DPS matters a lot more than how long you can sustain fire in GSF. The loss from losing the capacitor wouldn't be huge, and there are edge cases where at certain points on the timeline the magazine is better, provided it holds missile ammo, but in general the capacitor is going to be the stronger component. Even for cluster missiles, the sustained DPS for missile components is astonishingly low compared to primary weapons, so something has to be worth quite a bit balance wise to be worth trading away buffs to primary weapon damage.

 

Admittedly a capacitor is generally higher DPS than a magazine, but there are cases where if you choose one or the other you pick magazine - gunships. If missiles become a viable secondary, the T2 will require the munitions capacity extender. I feel like it will still benefit no matter what missiles become simply because as long as ships such as scouts can break 3 locks straight, constant pressure is the only way this ship will land missiles. So I see this component as the equivalent to the regeneration extender that is mandatory to gunships.

 

I think the recommendations as a whole probably don't change enough to make the currently uncompetitive ships competitive, or even really change the existing meta much.

 

I'm not sure of that, but this would be a completely theoretical debate in either case. I do think, for example, that the blaster changes combined with the new blaster options and mobility buff to the T1 strike would make it a competitive ship. If missiles become viable, the T2 strike would also become a dangerous ship. However as I've said, it's hard to tell unless the changes are implemented.

 

Oh, almost forgot. The QQ threads about interdiction missiles being as spammable as clusters would be both epic and hilarious.

 

I don't know why anyone should complain, after all ion railguns can already heavily debuff their targets and they are much more potent than clusters. I 'd love to see a Pike with ion/interdictions though. I've tried to build a "control Pike", but ion/concussions just doesn't seem to work right now. Strange...

Edited May 10, 2017 by Greezt

[LilSaihah]

Dunno about the other stuff but I like the idea of giving all primary weapons to Rycer and all missiles to Quell. Those seem like changes that wouldn't take a lot of effort to implement, and therefore perfect for GSF.

[Ramalina]

A reasonable point. I'll admit, originally when I thought of these changes I thought that bombers should be able to avoid missiles while behind cover. I don't know why though - they're not immune to railguns, which deal a heavy amount of burst damage too. So I adjusted the OP. Lock on times are now 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 for short range, medium range and long range missiles respectively.

 

Wow, you're generous!

 

I would have happily settled for 2.5 to 2.7 on mids and 3.0 to 3.5 on long (base times).

 

On the other hand, if one is trying to make Drakkolich on a bomber scared of torpedoes, your numbers look like they're probably about right.

 

I guess I'm just not used to the idea of getting to have nice things on strikes.

 

Edit: Um speaking of typos again, if you adjusted the OP

take 4 seconds to lock onto their target baseline

then I have to say your 2.5 looks an awful lot like a 4 to me. Maybe you should try using a more legible font. Edited May 10, 2017 by Ramalina

[Greezt]

Wow, you're generous!

 

I would have happily settled for 2.5 to 2.7 on mids and 3.0 to 3.5 on long (base times).

 

On the other hand, if one is trying to make Drakkolich on a bomber scared of torpedoes, your numbers look like they're probably about right.

 

I guess I'm just not used to the idea of getting to have nice things on strikes.

 

Well, I couldn't see a reason not to do it. If a railgun can do it (and deal more damage than any missile but a torp can, with a way shorter cooldown and uptime requirement) then why not missiles?

 

 

Edit: Um speaking of typos again, if you adjusted the OP then I have to say your 2.5 looks an awful lot like a 4 to me. Maybe you should try using a more legible font.

 

Aaaand fixed again. Apparently I had made medium-range missiles have 2.0 seconds lock on time and a 2.5 seconds reload time. Concussions would have been amazing like that. Maybe slightly OP, even.