GSF Discussion: Ship Balance

Ianir · July 11, 2017

I think that, overall, the ships are actually quite balanced with the exception of the Strike Fighters. The main thing I would like to see is that each Strike Fighter receives a modest buff. A few suggestions are as follows:

Improved Survivability:

1. Base damage reduction on Strikes should be equivalent to that of bombers.

2. Health (both hull and shield) on Strikes should be modestly increased.

3. If possible, Strikes should be given a 50% hardening to all effects of ion (including weapon drain & engine slow).

Improved Damage Output:

1. Range of primary and secondary weapons should be increased by 10-20% (a special Strike Fighter buff)

2. Damage of primary and secondary weapons should be increased by 10-20% (a special Strike Fighter buff)

Stellarcrusade · July 12, 2017

I think that, overall, the ships are actually quite balanced with the exception of the Strike Fighters. The main thing I would like to see is that each Strike Fighter receives a modest buff. A few suggestions are as follows:

Improved Survivability:
1. Base damage reduction on Strikes should be equivalent to that of bombers.
2. Health (both hull and shield) on Strikes should be modestly increased.
3. If possible, Strikes should be given a 50% hardening to all effects of ion (including weapon drain & engine slow).

Improved Damage Output:
1. Range of primary and secondary weapons should be increased by 10-20% (a special Strike Fighter buff)
2. Damage of primary and secondary weapons should be increased by 10-20% (a special Strike Fighter buff)

I doubt a modest buff will make any difference. Do you think these changes will convince veterans that only fly flash/sting to queue these half the time? Nope. I think any changes to the fighter/scout must end in with the seasoned veterans (people who are pro's at dog-fighting) having a bit of a 50/50 coin flip deciding which to choose. Otherwise we will still have the same thing of all dog-fighters 100% choosing the flashfire/sting 100% of the time.

caederon · July 12, 2017

I doubt a modest buff will make any difference. Do you think these changes will convince veterans that only fly flash/sting to queue these half the time? Nope. I think any changes to the fighter/scout must end in with the seasoned veterans (people who are pro's at dog-fighting) having a bit of a 50/50 coin flip deciding which to choose. Otherwise we will still have the same thing of all dog-fighters 100% choosing the flashfire/sting 100% of the time.

You might be surprised at how many veterans can be motivated to fly strike fighters.

If their bad components were fixed, and missiles were viable, I think people absolutely would fly them. They offer a different playstyle and some unique weapons (like Ion Cannon). If strikes were at least in the same ballpark as the rest of the choices, a lot more veterans would fly them.

Similarly, you'd see more T1 Scout play if EMP Field got fixed. It'd be a legit anti-bomber tool, and can be pretty dangerous offensively. If LLC was improved, too, it would be pretty potent around satellites.

You will see a variety of ship builds in play when they make the laundry list of underperforming components better.

- Despon

IanArgent · July 12, 2017

Strikes need to have a separate role from the other 3, not just be a "different tradeoffs" scout.

The design space in the middle of the RPS cycle of Scout>Gunship?Bomber>Scout is open...

Verain · July 12, 2017

I doubt a modest buff will make any difference. Do you think these changes will convince veterans that only fly flash/sting to queue these half the time? Nope.

In general, strikes are currently countered hard by: all railguns, almost all scouts, any bomber near a structure / on a node. Making them selectively immune to a specific railgun is a terrible idea (allowing them a shield choice with increased effectiveness against all railguns is something I feel is a good idea, but given that zero of them have access to the one shield that is actually good against railguns, it may be contrary to intent).

But the real reason I don't love the buffs is that they are just kinda generalist stuff. They need a job. You need to think "ok, the enemy is doing a lot of X, we should be playing more strikes because it counters that strategy".

Still, the part about giving them increased range and damage might actually accomplish that. That part is good. We've had that discussion a lot in the strike fighter thread.

In fact, let me copy paste from my post there. Here's the problems I see with strikes:

> No role

> Unable to do anything to the game state when running / hiding.

> Unable to meaningfully threaten to change gamestate if not pressured.

> Trivial to peel.

> Lack of damage to targets that are not just a torso IRL

> Only strange utility builds viable on a node.

> Less able to damage targets on a node than ANY other class- even a gunship in melee at a node outperforms a strike.

> Variety pack of engine components leaves them as unviable scouts

- Weapon Power Converter is garbage on almost any ship, but particularly garbage on strikes.

- Lack of choice of good components greatly narrows builds.

- Converting engine power to shield is barely worthwhile on a bomber who is forced to tank, really bad on a strike.

> (Type 1) Charged plating is a worthless trap without an armor component. This shield is entirely wasted on the type 1 strike.

> Poor secondary choices except on Clarion. A ship build to be tanky should be missing neither armor, nor shielding.

> Great amount of ground to cover with a missing system component (type 1 and type 2 strikes)

> (Type 3) All system options but repair probes are undertuned.

> Helpless versus gunships at range AND helpless versus scouts at melee AND helpless versus bombers at node.

- Choose a weakness and give them that, they can't just get literally all of them. Not ok!

---

My numbers-tweak based suggestions were:

> Strike turning and speed should be closer to scouts than they currently are. A 5% boost on both of these would help immensely (scouts have 13% more turning than strikes on live)

> Strikes could get a moderate boost to accuracy and damage with blasters (5% accuracy, 10% damage)

> Strikes could lock on 15% faster with their secondary weapons.

> Strikes could have a reduced cooldown on engine component cooldown- 10%.

> Strikes could get "shield hardness", a negative shield bleedthrough, of 5%.

Another idea, championed by Drako and others, is to simply increase the damned range on the strike components specifically. The range idea is good because it takes the reasonable narrow cone of strikes (which begins about 3-4k away from the strike, and extends to maybe like 6k-7k) and lengthens it. You can't widen it much, especially not with the strikes having worse turning than scouts, but you could make it meaningfully large. I've seen numbers up to 50% be seriously proposed and discussed.

But overall, I'll repeat my refrain verbatim:

Strikes should deal lethal damage when they are on targets, any target should be unwilling to tank the blasters of a strike fighter.

That's the core change that is needed. Right now, you have way too much time when a strike fighter has chosen you as a target. You can keep doing what you are doing for awhile, you aren't forced to peel or care immediately. You ignore a battle scout, you are space dust. Ignore a gunship, someone is getting hit for real damage. You can just prioritize a strike pretty much however you want.

If strikes maintain their role of not being as good at keeping things undernose as a scout- which is fine- they need to actually be able to motivate enemies to get the hell out of that cone, right now.

I think any changes to the fighter/scout must end in with the seasoned veterans (people who are pro's at dog-fighting) having a bit of a 50/50 coin flip deciding which to choose.

Here I disagree. The scouts are clearly going to be better at dogfighting. If the dogfighting core of a team is 3-5 battlescouts, it should probably not be. The team as a whole should perceive an advantage from having at least one strike on that team, and potentially two or three. If your desired task is to dogfight, it is reasonable to assume you will gravitate towards the one ship in the game with the best maneuverability, the best burst, the ability to counter evasion to some degree and armor completely, and the ability to evade shots and missiles on short cooldowns. To be blunt: even if all strikes continue to lose 1v1 versus battlescouts, the case of a starguard and a flashfire should have some advantages versus two flashfires.

Right now, you can easily "pay" as a strike. You can select components like rapid fire lasers, cluster missiles, and retros. This makes you the most effective you can be versus scouts, but you are still worse than the scouts. You don't defeat enemy scouts any faster than you would if you were on a scout, and you don't tank them any better than if you were on a scout. You "paid" to be good at dogfighting, at the cost of sucking against bombers and being pretty bad against gunships, but you didn't get to "cash in".

Meanwhile, a strike built with heavy lasers and proton torpedos is "paying" by being bad at dogfighting. You are unable to hurt a scout, but can you deroost gunships? Can you threaten bombers on nodes? What did you get for your "payment"?

Neither of these builds are generalists. Both are specialized- they just don't actually get to be GOOD at anything.

Otherwise we will still have the same thing of all dog-fighters 100% choosing the flashfire/sting 100% of the time.

That could be ok, but you should be able to think "my team doesn't have a strike, let me play one because that will help the team win". A meta where the scouts have no jobs because the strikes are immune to gunships or whatever isn't any better.

Verain · July 12, 2017

You might be surprised at how many veterans can be motivated to fly strike fighters.

I mean, that's largely because the playstyle is so inherently fun. I do feel it needs to effective. Maybe not a 50/50 coinfilp though.

If their bad components were fixed, and missiles were viable, I think people absolutely would fly them. They offer a different playstyle and some unique weapons (like Ion Cannon). If strikes were at least in the same ballpark as the rest of the choices, a lot more veterans would fly them.

This is definitely true. And honestly, it is a good starting point. If the devs last time had made some small strike buffs and said "this is all we feel comfortable doing for now", even if the buffs didn't help enough, it would have been a huge step in the right direction.

Similarly, you'd see more T1 Scout play if EMP Field got fixed.

I mean, this is an actual bug though. The range is still wrong, correct? But yes, you would see this more.

Greezt · July 12, 2017

Any buff to strikes only would probably be a welcome one (provided it doesn't break the game of course), but strike-only buffs should be limited to speed/turning/engine efficiency. Any idea such as buffing components specifically for strikes I disagree with, because good components work on strikes just as they do on any other ship. Bad components are the major reason as to why strikes are bad in the first place.

The main reason strikes are so weak is their reliance on missiles, which are generally weak. The only really good ones are clusters, and they rely on the user sticking to their target -- something strikes are bad at. However, while buffing strikes to be competitive via some sort of range, damage or accuracy buff to their chassis might fix them, it won't fix the other ships that are weak, and these ships are weak for precisely the same reasons strikes are.

All ships that are non-meta rely on missiles without having the capability of using them. The T3 scout has three bad missiles. The T3 bomber has one good option but is even less mobile and maneuverable than strikes. The T2 gunship has two horrible missiles, and apart for that there really is not a lot of reason to field it (HLC are actually nice, but limited against scouts). If missiles were made good, these three ships would become useful in addition to strikes, and that seems to me a less contrived solution/ Not to mention, it would probably create some confusion as to how that strike hit me from 10k with HLC.

Edit: regarding EMP, more than a range fix is probably needed. Even if EMP had 4500m as stated in the tooltip, it's still only available every 45 seconds and is a large defensive & offensive sacrifice compared to TT (loss of accuracy, evasion and crit chance on both primaries and secondaries). It should offer something more to the user, or alternatively have a shorter cooldown.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Greezt

Verain · July 12, 2017

but strike-only buffs should be limited to speed/turning/engine efficiency.

I don't see why. Minor component selection already makes a difference here- no scout has a magazine, for instance.

Any idea such as buffing components specifically for strikes I disagree with, because good components work on strikes just as they do on any other ship.

Strikes have quads. Quads are good. Quads are better on scouts.

Strikes have heavies. Heavies are good. They are even the best on strikes, as all other ships with them are even less maneuverable than them.

Strikes have clusters. Clusters are good. Clusters are better on scouts.

Strikes have mixed access to barrel roll, retro thruster, and power dive. All of these are good components. All of these are better on scouts.

Strikes have access to directional shields. While not as good as disto, it is not a trashcan component.

My point: Good components do NOT work on strikes just as they do on other ships. The components are tempered by the role and capability of the ship.

Bad components are the major reason as to why strikes are bad in the first place.

I feel this is a contributing and secondary factor. But strike problems are strike problems, and component problems are component problems. If rapid fire lasers were amazing tomorrow, would you hop on a type 1 strike to use them, or would you hop on one of the scouts that does them way better? If weapon power converter was buffed enough to use it- boosting raw damage or giving you infinity weapon energy or whatever- would you be more likely to select it on a strike, or a gunship?

To build a "heavy fighter" and a "light fighter", you need different handling for the ships (got that). You also need different weapons for each (only kinda got that).

Why is it ok that a quad laser cannon maneuvers so much better and faster on a type 2 scout, but can't do extra damage on a type 2 strike?

The main reason strikes are so weak is their reliance on missiles, which are generally weak.

True, and every ship that relies on missiles that aren't clusters has this issue. But if you buff those missiles enough to make strikes viable, did you overbuff them for bombers and gunships that have them? Do you fear a cluster missile type 2 scout, or a cluster missile type 1 strike?

I think missiles separately need buffs from strikes. I think that is two different problems.

Greezt · July 12, 2017

I don't see why. Minor component selection already makes a difference here- no scout has a magazine, for instance.

Indeed, and magazines are worthless for burst. They're only really important on gunships currently, although if missiles were buffed I could see the Pike benefitting from them. All scouts have armor, all scouts have a capacitor. The first is the most important component defensively, the second offensively. Scouts also have better choices within their major components -- better secondaries, better shields (heck, the T2 even has directionals in case someone wants to fly a better strike), the T2 scout has BLC, better engine choices (except for maybe the T1 strike, but all strikes definitely lack the variety scouts offer), and the T3 scout has better systems than the T3 strike.

Strikes have quads. Quads are good. Quads are better on scouts.
Strikes have heavies. Heavies are good. They are even the best on strikes, as all other ships with them are even less maneuverable than them.
Strikes have clusters. Clusters are good. Clusters are better on scouts.
Strikes have mixed access to barrel roll, retro thruster, and power dive. All of these are good components. All of these are better on scouts.
Strikes have access to directional shields. While not as good as disto, it is not a trashcan component.

The benefit scouts have from Quads/HLC/clusters is because of the following reasons: they can stick to their targets better due to speed and turning (affording more uptime) and they have better secondaries to augment their DPS. They also have their systems to increase their deadliness much more, but they're not really a must --

,

. If strikes were faster, had better engine efficiency, had better turning rates (any or all of the above) then the first part of the problem would be solved. The second part relies on making missiles other than clusters good. If you make a strike only fix (buff strike range, damage, give them special secondaires) you're still leaving the other weak ships out of the meta.

Other components: strikes suffer as much as scouts do from having only one break, only they're more susceptible to accuracy-based weapons and can run away less. Barrel roll only works on scouts with disto, try flying a barrel roll/directionals T2 scout and see why it's complete junk on the Pike. Gunships can get away with only one break because they can do their job from 15k away, but even then the most common gunship around is the T1 with two breaks. The only strike with powerdive is the one without thrusters, ironically. So it's still less mobile, and also lacks HLC that would make hitting targets slightly easier (or any secondary that even resembles something good). Retros actually work extremely well on a strike offensively, but any smart player will avoid a head-on joust and either outmaneuver the strike or run away. A strike with retros cannot chase targets down unless they take quick-charge shields, and then they're just food to anything with burst (so gunships and scouts). With directionals strikes can tank a lot of damage, but they're still susceptible to scouts turning figure eights around them and gunships ioning or slugging them. All could be fixed by buffing mobility and maneuverability.

I feel this is a contributing and secondary factor. But strike problems are strike problems, and component problems are component problems. If rapid fire lasers were amazing tomorrow, would you hop on a type 1 strike to use them, or would you hop on one of the scouts that does them way better? If weapon power converter was buffed enough to use it- boosting raw damage or giving you infinity weapon energy or whatever- would you be more likely to select it on a strike, or a gunship?

If RFLC were buffed, I'd take them on the scout of course because strikes would still be weak in any other regard all things equal. But if concussion missiles/torps were buffed, I'd not take them on a T1/T2 bomber -- at least not on a serious build, because bombers still have no breaks and no way to mitigate damage out in the open. I would take them on the T3 bomber though, which is the point. Also, I think that if RFLC were buffed in addition to strikes receiving their chassis buff that is not a component buff, I might take the T1 strike with them. I mean, if I knew that I'd be able to use them on the T1 effectively, and I knew that it's nice to have other blasters (say HLC for AP), why would I take a scout for them?

Why is it ok that a quad laser cannon maneuvers so much better and faster on a type 2 scout, but can't do extra damage on a type 2 strike?

Because components are global, and making them change stats based on ship would create confusion, mainly. But also because fixing a component for a specific ship does not actually make it good, and there's no point in having RFLC on scouts if they're only good on strikes.

True, and every ship that relies on missiles that aren't clusters has this issue. But if you buff those missiles enough to make strikes viable, did you overbuff them for bombers and gunships that have them? Do you fear a cluster missile type 2 scout, or a cluster missile type 1 strike?

First of all, I'd buff all missiles but clusters, because as mentioned I think clusters are good and the only reason they don't work on the T1/2 strikes and T3 bomber is that the platforms that carry them suck in these instances. The reason they do work on the T3 gunship is the synergy with slug in forcing scouts to use one break preemptively, and also in the fact that they're very secondary to damage and are mainly a defensive. Secondly as mentioned, I think buffing other missiles would be good for all non-meta ships, but not particularly for meta ones. Bombers who decide suddenly they need missiles (excluding the T3) will find out why you can't fly in the open with no breaks, especially in a buffed-missile world. The T3 gunship is already good with clusters, but wouldn't it be nice if it could also use EMP or interdiction missiles without being a troll build? The T2 gunship would gain a lot from torpedo buffs, but unless torpedoes are turned into clusters I doubt it will be overbuffed. So in general, I don't think buffing missiles will turn other ships into OP.

I think missiles separately need buffs from strikes. I think that is two different problems.

To be clear, I think strikes require a buff outside of component buffs. I'd like to see them get at the very least the engine efficiency of scouts, and possibly a speed & turning buff. I just don't want them to get a component buff special to them, because that's just a crude patch that doesn't actually fix the components, or the other weak ships.

Greezt · July 12, 2017

I've posted my ideas regarding missiles already, from the same thread here are the ships I think need more than component fixes, and what I think would help them.

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.

Verain · July 12, 2017

Everything

You are missing my point. When I say something like "buff range for the strike", I'm not literally saying that the Quad Laser Cannon for the strike should be different than the one for the scout. I'm saying that the strike should get a special component or base state that states that it has extra range, much like the scout has base stats that give it more maneuverability, speed, and booster efficiency. You just put a "range multiplier" of 1.0 on the non-strikes, and 1.2 (or whatever) on the strikes. Or a base stat of "damage multiplier", or whatever. And then reflect that in the tooltips.

Simultaneously or after that, you could fix the issue where someone with access to rapid fire lasers, burst laser cannon, and quad lasers, will never ever pick rapid fire lasers.

To be clear, I think strikes require a buff outside of component buffs. I'd like to see them get at the very least the engine efficiency of scouts, and possibly a speed & turning buff.

You mostly want to make them scouts, but without the scout system component. I get that, I guess I would just like them to have closer to the same feel of the current strikes.

I just don't want them to get a component buff special to them, because that's just a crude patch that doesn't actually fix the components, or the other weak ships.

We both want to buff the strike hull. I want to do it in a way that keeps their tight threat cone and makes it more deadly, you want to give them a cone that is broader like a scout. I'd be happy with either, of course, but I still think keeping them flying different is the better goal.

Ramalina · July 13, 2017

In terms of strike balance, and balance for all the other underperforming ships it sort of helps to look at this question.

So, the question is are the T1G, T2S, and T3G all overpowered? Or are the remaining non-bombers all junk?

The answer to the first part is yes, and by a stupendously large margin. The answer to the second part in a simple sense is no, the T1 scout has one build that's just fine. In a more complex analysis, the other ships are affected by components that can't compete against the combined strength of multiple OP components, which gets into component design and ship design.

If we look at the current meta in terms of which ships are in it, and what roles do they perform, it's worth asking, what would it take to actually BREAK the meta.

We'll leave the bombers alone so that they have the chance to become the overlords of a degenerate and broken meta.

So let's start with nerfs, since the quote is in the context of being scared of nerfs, which is perhaps a bit odd with respect to GSF, as the history of nerfs in GSF has largely been one of every significant nerf greatly improving balance.

To make the nerfs properly scary we'll maximize them. The nerfs will be achieved by just outright deleting components.

Ok, so we'll start off by deleting Distortion field. Is the meta still intact? Yes. There's an awful lot of howling from battlescouts about railguns because being lazy about LOS now has consequences, but ultimately they still have their job and do it better than anyone else.

Next we'll delete BLCs. Not because we especially hate scouts, but because we're going after shared components first. Now there's a fair dent in the meta. Turning dogfights are no longer easy for battlescouts, so though they still should aways win a turn battle, it's no longer fast or easy. Scout hunting scout and elusive gunship hunter roles have sort of disappeared as a thing battlescouts excel at.

At this point though, bombers are being bombers, gunships are being gunships, and scouts are being scouts in the meta, and none of the ships you'd pick for those jobs have changed.

So what else would we have to delete to genuinely BREAK the meta. My list of additional deletions would be: Ion Railgun, Slug Railgun, TT, and BO. Removing slug will drop the T3 gunship out of the meta, to get the T1 gunship out you need to add Ion Railgun as well, TT takes out the T1 scout and Quads and Pods T2s, and adding BO to the list finally gets battlescouts fully out of their current place in the meta.

Bombers can take the throne without worrying about insurrection at this point. There'll be insurrection, it just won't accomplish anything.

You'd really have to nerf the crap out of things to break the meta. I wouldn't worry about the effect of minor or moderate nerfs to a meta that could take outright deletion of some of the most powerful components in GSF and barely flinch.

All this comes out of two sorts of power differences. One is ship builds. Before sensor damping nerfs messed with things the T1 Gunship and T2 Battlescout had perfect selections of component slots. There was nothing you could change that would make the ships better, and any change would make the ship worse. The T3 gunship arguably you could swap out one to two component slots for a different type and potentially have gains.

This has an effect, but it's not as bad as one might think. The T3 strike would very much like to trade sensors for thrusters, but really that's pretty much it. The component types mostly are well chosen for the ship types.

The component options within those slots are a pretty significant problem. Here you have outright bad design, for example on the T2 strike you have armor instead of a reactor, but of the engine components that work well with armor you get the one that doesn't work well for a dogfighter with standoff weapons. Charged plating there should have been Distortion instead.

Then there's the problem of components that either don't work well at all, or just don't work well enough to compete with the overpowered ones.

The overpowered components really are overpowered, at least in current context. Even in comparison to things that at generally accepted as fine.

Directional shields are fine right? So we should all be able to answer this question pretty easily, "Why do you prefer taking Directional shields over Distortion on your battlescout in some situations?" If Directionals are truly fine and Distortion isn't overpowered then there should be a good answer to that question, and it should have wide currency in the community of high skilled players.

It affects the meta ships too, because they are really not meta ships, they are meta builds. The Quick Charge Battlescout is not a thing in the meta, neither is the Ion-Plasma gunship.

If you get the components all working at pretty similar levels of effectiveness, then strike specific buffs might not be needed. They're by far the fastest platform that can carry both big guns and big missiles. If big guns and big missiles both work, then that's a thing strikes can do, show up and blow a big hole in things.

I'm somewhat pro-nerf on selected components, because to bring everything up to the level of the overperforming components is going to be a lot of work. If only buffing then you need to bring torpedoes up to the level of clusters. So they have to be able to be spammable enough to land on a bomber doing a LOS dance or the missile breaks on a single break ship. But if they're still torpedo like, they'll be as hard to land and slow to fire as "hitting targets" will allow, which means the damage is going to likely be on the order of being able to oneshot any bomber build. It'll have to be in order for them to compete fairly with other secondary weapons. Ouch!

Oh, and do keep in mind that in this environment Quick Charge and Directionals, among others, should offer just as good overall protection as Distortion does. How strong are Directionals in a world where they fight Distortion to a draw even with all the one-shotting torpedoes flying around?

It potentially gets pretty ridiculous pretty fast.

Though I suppose if a T1 strike running Directionals has 10000 shield points per arc and regens at 750 points per second new players might not feel that TTKs are too short any more.

Strikes probably have a place for one or two additional blasters in the 6 to 10 km range that offer interesting choices for the weapon swap on the T1. Other than that, as long as every component slot has a component that's working as well as anything a battlescout or gunship has, I'm not sure there's that much to be gained from spaceframe buffs outside of a minor engine power regen rate buff.

Verain · July 13, 2017

as the history of nerfs in GSF has largely been one of every significant nerf greatly improving balance

The mine nerf made ticking possible. While not gamebreaking at the top level, many new pilots have serious problems with tick bombers.

The EMP nerf was a bomber buff. Probably an accident, but whatever.

The Bypass nerf took bypass out of the meta. It didn't do anything to motivate ships to select thicker shields instead of evasion, however. A lesser nerf would have been much better for the meta. All the nerf did was gut a good ability and shrink the meta.

The nerfs that helped were the evasion nerf, because it went from highly OP to reasonable, and the railgun charge level nerf, because it ended a degenerate technique.

we'll start off by deleting Distortion field. Is the meta still intact? Yes.

I played briefly during the time when the distortion did not break missiles. Playing a gunship was unreasonable, as scouts could not be turned off. We saw a great deal more cluster missile spam. There were many things broken during this patch, but it was a really not fun patch, and the disto being broken was a huge part of that. We also saw a lot more bomber play, as predicted. That bugpatch was the worst GSF has ever been.

Without distortion, scouts are worse, and gunships are worse. Bombers and strikes are unchanged. At this point, the meta has already shrunk. Type 1 scouts are unarguably worse, and strikes aren't playable. Gunships are much easier to deroost. All this change has done is shrunk the meta.

Next we'll delete BLCs.

This makes a big difference. Without BLCs, charged plating is wildly powerful. If deleting disto didn't help bombers, this assuredly does. All dogfights now take much longer. This is the first nerf that helps strikes in any way, because it increases their lifespan somewhat. This nerf hits gunships too, but not much. Now we have a meta where the game is slower, and any strategy that works with a slower game is better.

At this point, you are ruled by bomber play and the response to it. Railguns still counter bombers, but the bombers hardly ever have to expose themselves to railguns, and any scout that can reach a gunship can ruin them pretty well. Type 2 bombers lose ground to type 1 bombers because plating, but are still playable.

The game at this point is a bomber meta.

Ion Railgun, Slug Railgun, TT, and BO.

And this game is just bombers.

You destroy the meta long before you get that far down the list. You delete more ships and builds with every step than you add. A player has fewer options and strategies available, starting at the very tip-top of the suggestions.

The history of GSF nerfs are a mixed bag. The goal of most of the arguments here is to enlarge the meta. Your hypothetical, and most nerf suggestions, just shrink it. None of these nerfs make strikes playable, and all of them start kicking ships out.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Verain

Greezt · July 13, 2017

You are missing my point. When I say something like "buff range for the strike", I'm not literally saying that the Quad Laser Cannon for the strike should be different than the one for the scout. I'm saying that the strike should get a special component or base state that states that it has extra range, much like the scout has base stats that give it more maneuverability, speed, and booster efficiency. You just put a "range multiplier" of 1.0 on the non-strikes, and 1.2 (or whatever) on the strikes. Or a base stat of "damage multiplier", or whatever. And then reflect that in the tooltips.

I could sort of get behind this, but it still does not fix any other broken ship (all of which we have agreed are weak for partially the same reason strikes are). So it's not a good fix unless you also completely change the components on other ships, making them more like meta ships along the way. Seems like a dulling-down to me compared to what could be done.

Simultaneously or after that, you could fix the issue where someone with access to rapid fire lasers, burst laser cannon, and quad lasers, will never ever pick rapid fire lasers.

How? By removing weak blasters? We want more options, not less. Having the T1/3 scouts with LC only? Kicking LLC and RFLC out of the game save on strikes? I don't get this.

You mostly want to make them scouts, but without the scout system component. I get that, I guess I would just like them to have closer to the same feel of the current strikes.

A strike more maneuverable and mobile would not feel like a scout to me, because of the range and way of dealing damage. Example: my current favorite T1 strike build is HLC/Quads/directional/retros/concussions. It's a mid-range jouster, and is actually decent at killing ships via blasters alone. Its issue is that it get out-turned and can't chase, as well as landing about one in 3/4 concussions maybe. Making concussions more threatening would go a lot of the way to fixing this build offensively, and giving it more mobility would finish the job. Turning would be nice too, but I'm not sure if that's necessary. In either case, it still wouldn't be a scout because it doesn't burst damage (and it never will unless they make missiles insanely OP), and it's tanky. That's what males a strike a strike to me.

We both want to buff the strike hull. I want to do it in a way that keeps their tight threat cone and makes it more deadly, you want to give them a cone that is broader like a scout. I'd be happy with either, of course, but I still think keeping them flying different is the better goal.

I feel that making strikes more deadly within their cone is akin to giving them DO, which is basically making them scout-like in the way they deal damage. They'll then rely on surprise burst damage to kill targets, and will still be inferior to scouts in any other conceivable way (since they still won't have a counter to ions, slugs and BLC). Even if strikes straight up did twice as much blaster damage as scouts, I don't think you'd see them in meta games, for the same reasons even a strike with DO is not a huge threat. They're slow, lumbering, easy to escape even with DO. Maybe a Quads/clusters T1 can do some high burst damage, but that's basically a scout build.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Greezt

Greezt · July 13, 2017

I envision roles something like this:

scouts - close/medium-range burst damage, very low tankiness, very high mobility.

gunships - long-range burst/sustained damage, low tankiness, low mobility.

bombers - area denial, very high tankiness, very low mobility.

strikes - close/medium-range sustained damage, high tankiness, high mobility.

I think that were strikes able to put up constant pressure on target by being a real threat, it would matter less that they're worse than scouts at killing something fast. They'd survive long enough that ignoring them wouldn't be an option, and their damage would be good enough that if you do ignore them, you die (on any ship).

Edited July 13, 2017 by Greezt

Verain · July 13, 2017

I could sort of get behind this, but it still does not fix any other broken ship (all of which we have agreed are weak for partially the same reason strikes are).

I actually don't think that's quite true.

The type 3 bomber is probably broken for the same reason the strikes are. If we end up with strike frame buffs and also component buffs to weak components and he still has no job, then we could worry about that. As a "hybrid" ship with high missile reliance, I would expect him to feel different anyway.

The type 2 gunship and type 3 scout suffer from the case of "not having a job", but it's not the same issue plaguing strikes. The strikes are all effectively bad scouts: the type 2 gunship is a gunship missing a competitive reason to be chosen over the other two gunships. Certainly any buff that addresses the weak thermite and proton also helps. But if components are introduced which allow for just a bit of limited protection against railguns some of the time, that also helps, because not slotting a second railgun becomes potentially advantageous in that meta.

Similarly, the type 3 scout relies heavily on lock-on missiles, all of which are underpowered. The ion missile is probably even bugged to be as bad as it is, and the whole lot of his stuff also needs help.

A type 3 scout will usually contribute more to his team than a type 1 or type 2 strike. He's not as annoying. A type 3 bomber on a node still helps his team. Any meaningful type 2 gunship build can be done about the same or better by the type 1 gunship: there's not a lot of points of distinction between the two, and the ones that exist favor the type 1. But he can still park and shoot.

Basically, these guys are held back by a combination of "reliance on lock on weaponry" and "access to lock on weaponry in a manner meant to provide a choice or alternate play method, that doesn't quite work".

Strikes suffer from that. But they have other issues too.

So it's not a good fix unless you also completely change the components on other ships, making them more like meta ships along the way. Seems like a dulling-down to me compared to what could be done.

I mean, I might not be totally following.

I feel: buff the strike frame with the intention of delivering a dogfighting role that has strengths and weaknesses compared to that of scouts. Buff many of the underpowered components. Gently nerf the pieces of the top components that are kinda controlling the metagame in cases where that is the right answer. And if you are making incremental changes, do it in that order.

How? By removing weak blasters? We want more options, not less. Having the T1/3 scouts with LC only? Kicking LLC and RFLC out of the game save on strikes? I don't get this.

My point there is just to demonstrate that a needed RFL fix won't also fix strikes. It will just fix RFL. If RFL was super amazing, your chosen delivery method would still be a scout. I'm just saying that strikes need frame buffs, independent from RFL needing a component buff.

I feel that making strikes more deadly within their cone is akin to giving them DO, which is basically making them scout-like in the way they deal damage.

Yea, that's a fair concern. But doesn't making their cone BIGGER partially fix this? A strike with a DO is played against differently than a strike without one. Notably, people will actually respond to that strike appropriately, either targeting it first, or running.

Stellarcrusade · July 13, 2017

I envision roles something like this:

scouts - close/medium-range burst damage, very low tankiness, very high mobility.
gunships - long-range burst/sustained damage, low tankiness, low mobility.
bombers - area denial, very high tankiness, very low mobility.
strikes - close/medium-range sustained damage, high tankiness, high mobility.

I think that were strikes able to put up constant pressure on target by being a real threat, it would matter less that they're worse than scouts at killing something fast. They'd survive long enough that ignoring them wouldn't be an option, and their damage would be good enough that if you do ignore them, you die (on any ship).

Scouts would still be able to kill strikes quite easily, people would just fly scouts still. And if you are proposing to leave scouts as they are now and somehow increase the damage strikes do above that to make them a threat I'm not sure its possible. A blc/pods scout can kill you in a couple of seconds, so even if it was under 1 second with on strike they would both be equally overpowered really.

I think tankiness should stay the same on classes but: Roles possibly should be:

scouts - low damage, NO advantage to close range damage (no blc), long range engine boost (as is now), high mobility (as is now)

gunships - same as now

bombers - same as now

strikes - medium damage at distance, high damage close range (blc), medium range engine boost, medium mobility.

It should require scouts utilize their mobility to wear out an opponent, and close range should give no burst to scouts (blc) because it is way too easy for them to be at close range to all targets fast. Strikes it would be harder to get into close range reward the effort with the BLC feature. Blc/pods scouts do not really need to be good at targetting because they are always up close to the target (point blank range), press 2 mouse buttons and target is dead. Its just too easy, simple to be close and in position to all targets, simple to target because of the close range and simple to get lock on, because there is no lock on. Just boost, press 2 mouse buttons, target dead, repeat. I would like to add skill to the class, but also at the same time bring strikes into the game. A start would be to move BLC from scouts to strikes. The smart veteran players would stand out more with appropriate changes and they would do equally as good in a scout as a strike.

But really, you can buff/change strike fighters all you want, without changes to scout at the same time still all veterans will just fly flash/sting all of the time and strikes will still not be relevant. Who wouldn't want to fly the fastest, hardest hitting, most meneuverable, longest engine range, no-need-for-lock-on-weapons, easy kill ship to pad their stats. ;-) I also do not think making strikes more of a utility class is the answer either.

caederon · July 13, 2017

Blc/pods scouts do not really need to be good at targetting because they are always up close to the target (point blank range), press 2 mouse buttons and target is dead. Its just too easy, simple to be close and in position to all targets, simple to target because of the close range and simple to get lock on, because there is no lock on. Just boost, press 2 mouse buttons, target dead, repeat. I would like to add skill to the class,

Have you actually ever flown this build? Or spent much time in scouts, in general?

These thinly veiled insults to the skill of people good with that build are extremely reductive and grossly understate the effort necessary to get into close range and stay there without dying.

Shooting accurately is also a very practiced skill that is not easily accomplished. Look at the Hit% on the scoreboard after your matches. How many people are actually shooting accurately while taking a statistically meaningful volume of shots?

It's really poor form to just offhandedly dismiss the work necessary to get good in a build that is so intensively based around manually targeting enemies while staying alive in a very fragile ship.

- Despon

ThutmoseV · July 13, 2017

We don't want strikes to be more like scouts, since then there is no reason for a separate category of strike fighters. But we can give them a role without making them move or turn faster.

But overall, I'll repeat my refrain verbatim:
Strikes should deal lethal damage when they are on targets, any target should be unwilling to tank the blasters of a strike fighter.

Hence my previous suggestion, make quad lasers more powerful, but only available on strikes. Quads may need an armor piercing upgrade to counter CP, but t1 strike at least could still use HLC for armor piercing.

T2 scouts would still have BLC, which many players prefer to use anyway.

My other suggestions are for faster lockon for concussion missiles, and a larger engine power pool for mobility. All of these changes could be scaled to adjust for good balance.

Greezt · July 13, 2017

@Verain: aright, I understand. I agree with most of that, apart for a couple of things:

buffing components should probably come first, because any component change affects all ships. While that on its own will not turn strikes viable, it may turn the other ships (mostly the T3 scout and T2 gunship) into viable.
I still have issue with the fact that a DO strike simply is not scary. Yes, people will move if shot at by one, but it can't actually pressure anyone. It still gets shut down by ions and slugs. They'd still not be a threat, while a strike that was capable of sticking to targets would be perceived as a more realistic threat even currently (and certainly if missiles were an actual threat).

@Stellarcrusade: for one thing, that scouts can kill strikes is not necessarily an issue. If strikes are worth fielding, they need a ship that can deal with them, and for all I know it could be scouts. Secondly, if a scout beats a strike by outmaneuvering them and then killing them, that's fine with me too. The question is whether strikes can be able to pressure scouts. Currently, the answer is pretty much no. You could build a Pike or Star Guard with the intent of harassing a scout the whole match, but the thing is that scout will still be able to preform to decent levels whilst ignoring you, while you will be taking yourself out of the match. If strikes were buffed to be made viable in any way (I want mobility and missile buffs mainly), then scouts will not be able to ignore them.

Think of a gunship. Scouts can't continue to do their job under gunship fire, because they know they'll die. They either run away, or deal with the gunship. That's what I want strikes to be. Scouts already fulfil the role of burst ships close-range, gunships already fulfil the role of burst ships at range (and if plasmas were fixed, also sustained). Bombers do area denial, and strikes could do sustained close-range. All they need is the ability to actually sustain damage, which can be achieved by improving their secondaries and their mobility.

Who wouldn't want to fly the fastest, hardest hitting, most meneuverable, longest engine range, no-need-for-lock-on-weapons, easy kill ship to pad their stats.

This is a good quote. I like this quote. It shows a complete ignorance of how games work, so allow me to explain:

A game is created, in the game, there are certain ways to win, and if the game is well balanced then each way can be countered by another way and no way is the best. However, almost no game is that well balanced -- so certain ways become good in more situations.

People who play games can do so for a variety of reasons, but a major one will always be winning and performing well. I've yet to meet someone who enjoys losing and performing poorly in any game. To the people who want to win, it's natural to seek the best way to do so -- in the case of GSF, the best components, ships, team comps and strategies.

Yet here you are, saying something is OP and too easy to use, and therefore anyone who uses it is a stat padding. I mean, if everyone is using the best ship what does it come down to? Of course, if you insist on flying inferior options then you will effectively be padding their stats, but that's you.

Really, a winky face? Trolling is a subtle art, you can't just flaunt it in our faces. It makes it too obvious.

Ramalina · July 13, 2017

The mine nerf made ticking possible. While not gamebreaking at the top level, many new pilots have serious problems with tick bombers.

I'll remind you that the mine nerf also ended the "SIM bomber or don't bother" era of capturing enemy held sats. Shifting the problem from all skill brackets to just lower skill brackets isn't ideal, but it was at least a small gain.

The EMP nerf was a bomber buff. Probably an accident, but whatever.
The Bypass nerf took bypass out of the meta. It didn't do anything to motivate ships to select thicker shields instead of evasion, however. A lesser nerf would have been much better for the meta. All the nerf did was gut a good ability and shrink the meta.

I was thinking mostly of deliberate nerfs, but fair points, though I still use Bypass situationally. With weapons that already have piercing and in a very bomber heavy environment is a pretty niche situation though, especially since you need to know that it's coming before the match starts.

The nerfs that helped were the evasion nerf, because it went from highly OP to reasonable, and the railgun charge level nerf, because it ended a degenerate technique.

Evasion components individually definitely became reasonable, stacking it, well I guess one could say it's a reasonable level of OP.

I played briefly during the time when the distortion did not break missiles. Playing a gunship was unreasonable, as scouts could not be turned off. We saw a great deal more cluster missile spam. There were many things broken during this patch, but it was a really not fun patch, and the disto being broken was a huge part of that. We also saw a lot more bomber play, as predicted. That bugpatch was the worst GSF has ever been.

Gunship pilots and battlescout pilots get very whiny if they have to make any effort to rule the meta, this is not a secret. However, given that basically no one voted with their components and switched to any of the choices that are not Distortion, and given that two of those options, Feedback and Directional are supposedly fine in the current meta, I'm calling shenanigans on this assertion. Particularly since I've done the math on cluster spam, and know that the burst damage is mediocre, and the that sustained damage is quite frankly pathetic, even if you forgot to check your hangar for an unequipped engine component. By the time it gets to spam instead of a first shot burst, you should really be more worried about Rocket Pod spam, even with evasion acting on the pods but not the missiles.

Really disliking a change where a component goes from OP to not OP is perfectly normal, but it's not a balance problem. Your own proposed change to Distortion is basically to recreate this exact bug and then disable the Lock Time reduction upgrade. Your solution is to have very slightly slower Cluster Missile spam. I don't buy the balance problem argument on this one at all. But would you really expect a strike fan to?

Without distortion, scouts are worse, and gunships are worse. Bombers and strikes are unchanged. At this point, the meta has already shrunk. Type 1 scouts are unarguably worse, and strikes aren't playable. Gunships are much easier to deroost. All this change has done is shrunk the meta.

Strikes aren't in this hypothetical meta as full competitors, but they have changed drastically in this scenario. I spent quite a bit of time playing during the bug, largely because having the ability to force both scouts and gunships to either peel or get punished for not peeling was a gigantic improvement for strikes. A combination of missiles still being too weak to compete with other secondaries and the power of evasion against blasters kept strike damage low enough to deny entry to the meta in full, but there's a world of difference between being completely irrelevant and being able to force an opponent to respond. The response is a cost they have to pay that they would have preferred to spend on something else.

Hearing gunships and scouts whining about the cost of having to fly defensively against missiles is gratifying, but for strikes to have reasonable offensive output while in a model where you limit changes to affecting existing components then you really need to both nerf Distortion and buff every missile that isn't Cluster or Interdiction. If pilots of ships that rely on evasion as a primary dense express a passionate dislike of a mechanic for hard countering evasion, that's not really a bad thing. Now you can take it to a point where missiles ignoring evasion becomes too much of a good thing, but the Distortion bug didn't come close to reaching that level. Kind of a shame, as it would have been a lot of fun to sample missiles as an OP component for a few weeks.

This makes a big difference. Without BLCs, charged plating is wildly powerful. If deleting disto didn't help bombers, this assuredly does. All dogfights now take much longer. This is the first nerf that helps strikes in any way, because it increases their lifespan somewhat. This nerf hits gunships too, but not much. Now we have a meta where the game is slower, and any strategy that works with a slower game is better.

Really? Where is charged plating wildly powerful? On the node, where it's already wildly powerful. As long as AP works the way it currently works and any railgun has AP at 100% then CP really can't get out of hand anywhere except on the node, where it is already fairly out of hand. Which is a function it needs to have in order to prevent sats from becoming battlescout merry go rounds again. At least, as long as mine numbers and LOS rules stay as they currently are.

Bombers are meant to counter scouts on the satellite, and doing that well isn't a problem. If the counters for bombers are too weak against bombers, sure either nerf bombers or buff strikes and gunships in some areas, but point blank brawling is supposed to be where scouts are at their worst against bombers, not to be the most rapid means of getting rid of bombers. So as a buff to bombers, it's one they deserve to have.

BLCs being largely responsible for making the BLC scout a fine counter to: scouts, strikes, gunships, and bombers is a great example of how to make rock-paper-scissors balance about as broken as it can be on the overpowered end of the scale.

At this point, you are ruled by bomber play and the response to it. Railguns still counter bombers, but the bombers hardly ever have to expose themselves to railguns, and any scout that can reach a gunship can ruin them pretty well. Type 2 bombers lose ground to type 1 bombers because plating, but are still playable.

The game at this point is a bomber meta.

As long as bombers exist, their role is area denial, and they are at all effective at it, Domination matches are going to be ruled by bomber play and the response to it. If that's a problem with the meta you either have to delete bombers or turn them into something different, B-wings and TIE Bombers for example.

Let's look at the meta in this state. Bombers counter bombers. Ion railgun can clear the deployables off of a node and allow any ship to get in and take on the bomber with the bomber's strength in close quarters mostly taken out of the picture. Scouts wreck gunships, gunships wreck scouts (remember, disto is gone here, it's probably slightly shifted in favor of the gunships. To spam enough clusters to make the gunship cry the scout has to survive the Slug damage on the way in, plus Ion is now a factor for scouts), scouts wreck strikes in a joust, gunships Ion and murder strikes that stray from cover, strikes can't kill anything effectively yet but they can finally make scouts and gunships very, very sorry for just brushing them off and ignoring them. The T1 scout is in an extremely niche area, mostly in TDMs, the T3 scout is enjoying a bit more usability from Thermite, and the T2 gunship and the poor Decimus still have most of their problems because they can't get much of a return on the increased vulnerability of targets to missiles.

The spread separating the good versus the terrible is a lot narrower than it was, which is the point of balance. All the meta ships are still meta ships. The only role that has disappeared is that of scouts being such good dogfighters that no other ship can hope to compete. They're still the best at it, but not by enough of a margin to make it a special and really distinctive thing. We're being hyperbolic for illustrative purposes here. Deleting BLCs is not a reasonable balance proposal. Taking away AP from BLC is, if a rather severe one, and you get most of the balance effects without the BLC scout losing its dogfighting crown. Point stands though, if you delete BLCs scouts are still in the meta doing scouty things so well that no other ship can hope to compete on that function.

And this game is just bombers.

Yes it is just bombers. That's the point of the exercise, to see how much nerfing it takes to fully displace scouts from scouting and gunships from being gunships. This is the level of nerfing where being terrified of nerfs actually makes sense. This is why for the most part I'm not really that afraid of potential nerfs even though I share everyone else's confidence in Bioware's ability to creatively bungle balance changes that you wouldn't imagine could be bungled.

GSF does mostly need buffs. If a sizable fraction of the components are non-functional, you can't achieve balance by nerfing unless you make everything non-functional, and that would clearly be a bad idea.

On the other hand if you want a tightly balanced meta, and I do, then overpowered things are also a problem. If we preserve Distortion with no nerfs and then buff missiles to the point of being as good as the best secondary that's not missiles, things are going to get messy for anything without two breaks. Similarly, if Directionals are strong enough to go toe to toe with Distortion then Ion Railgun, Ion Cannon or Proton Torpedoes will be mandatory for killing anything with Directionals, nothing else will have enough punch to get through, well maybe Slug piercing damage, but that's pretty slow. Hm, well maybe things will cancel out and it will all be sunshine and roses?

It's possible but unlikely. So many things need to be buffed so hard if you take a buff only approach that I think spectacular unexpected consequences are inevitable. They might be inevitable anyway, but if you're willing to nerf down things that are clearly overperforming to a point where they still have a role and still are quite good, leave alone the things that are pretty good as they are, and then buff the remainder up to that level, the number of unexpected consequences should be lower and their magnitude should be (hopefully) a lot smaller.

Oh, and I do realize that it's Despon arguing against any nerfs more than you are Verain. You just aren't enthusiastic about nerfs.

So after that really long and circuitous off topic wandering, if you do nerf overperforming things down to par ( my full list being BLCs give AP to RFLs, Slug gives AP to Plasma, Distortion loses or mostly loses missile break, and Cluster gains a second of reload time) then I think that if missiles are buffed up to be a real and competitive weapon option and the strike defenses are buffed to the point where they're as tanky as an evasion scout, then strikes potentially have enough power to bring on their own merits. They have a nice kit for taking on bombers from just outside the range of mines. They also have enough pressure to dislodge gunships and peel scouts. They also become a good option for quickly ripping turrets off of a sat with a good combination of mobility and AP.

If GSF changes are more than a one-off deal then at that point there even might be space to start contemplating making AP and CP somewhat less all or nothing.

I'm not sure there's hope at this point for a distinct role for strikes. Scouts got burst damage and should retain it, but that takes away the A-wing vs X-wing style of role distinction where the interceptor has lower damage and makes up for it by being able to have more time on target. Game modes also pretty much prevent torpedoes from giving an X-wing style job. If everyone has the same size payload, and there aren't time limited distant targets that you need to get a payload of torpedoes to, then one of the primary jobs of the X-wing "get to the armored high value target and kill it before it escapes" simply does not exist in GSF, and given the map sizes and mechanics I don't see it being able to exist. Settling for pretty tanky, pretty mobile, and serious (but not frontloaded bursty) effective firepower from blasters and missiles is probably all there is available if you want to keep strikes still feeling like strikes.

I'm with Greezt on wanting global balancing solutions instead of band-aids. It's a bit odd maybe, but I'm bothered that Ion-Slug, Ion-Plasma, and Slug-Plasma are not viable as three distinct and worthwhile T1 gunship playstyles. This despite the fact that I don't foresee myself liking any gunship playstyle other than the T3 double missile build. The gunship pilots that like the railgun sniping playstyle should have that depth of meta in railgun sniping available to them and currently they don't. It's not realistic I'm sure, but as long as this is just lobbying the devs I might as well lobby for bringing even the "contains some plasma" builds of the T1 gunship into the shop for needed repairs. Bringing the T1 gunships that aren't in the meta in is less of a priority than bringing the ship types that have no builds in the meta, but it doesn't make those T1 builds undeserving of attention. Hence the preference for global solutions. Fixing the T2 gunship probably involves fixing Plasma railgun, and that will probably get you the Plasma T1 builds as a bonus.

With half of the ships not being in the meta, and most of the ships in the meta only having one or two meaningful build variations within the meta, I tend to view GSF balance as being so badly broken already that major shifts in balance seem more likely to be beneficial than problematic. If something is more than half broken already, a fix that does some collateral damage on the way doesn't have to be all that big for it to still be a net gain.

I'm tired enough of GSF's existing dysfunctions that I'm willing to back the devs if they want to make their next hand played on GSF balance to involve, "all in."

Edited July 13, 2017 by Ramalina

caederon · July 13, 2017

Oh, and I do realize that it's Despon arguing against any nerfs more than you are Verain. You just aren't enthusiastic about nerfs.

Just to be clear, what I am arguing is that:

First: Make EMP work properly in its Field and Missile form. Allow it to fulfill its function through buffs to various parts of these components (or just making them work as the tooltop states)
Second: Look at the rest of the non-Cluster missiles. Make them dangerous. There are various ways to accomplish this. Make them a threat that has to be dealt with.
Third: I actually like Verain's 'make Strike Fighter primary weapon damage something you have to pay attention to' so I'll slot this in here.
Fourth: Do something to improve the laundry list of garbage components (QCS, Interdiction Drive, Sensor Beacon, Sensors, Remote Slicing, it is a long list)
Fifth: Test to see what all that does then rebalance, nerfing (or tweaking downward) things that need it.

__

(Yes, I now realize I could have just made that a numbered list. TOO LATE.)

What I am advocating specifically against is nerfing the parts of a pretty stable three-class meta (that provides a functional game right now) thereby making everything kind of a crap choice.

Improve the garbage, make those components playable, test them, then see where things are.

If every change to GSF has to happen in a One Day Only Clearance Balance Blowout Sale, ne'er to be touched again, it's going to result in a dumpster fire. And what will happen is everyone good at the game will pretty quickly identify whatever combo of stuff conveys the greatest advantage, and that will be the thing that everyone comes to the forum to complain about for the next two years or until they turn the lights off.

Inb4 'Combat Command T3F with Ion Missile is OP! NEEDS NERFED!'

IF I were starting with the nerf-bat whirling around, I would aim it first at Charged Plating, because it's at the source of a lot of the other necessities that define the meta as it is right now. I'd also take a serious look at Power Dive, which basically turns ships into a missile-proof yo-yo. Once people figured out now to avoid smashing into rocks with PD, it became a really powerful component.

BUT I am not starting with nerfs, since I want to see a diverse array of good choices. Make other stuff better, then look at what needs toned down or rebalanced afterwards.

- Despon

Edited July 13, 2017 by caederon

Greezt · July 13, 2017

However, given that basically no one voted with their components and switched to any of the choices that are not Distortion, and given that two of those options, Feedback and Directional are supposedly fine in the current meta, I'm calling shenanigans on this assertion.

If pilots of ships that rely on evasion as a primary dense express a passionate dislike of a mechanic for hard countering evasion, that's not really a bad thing.

These are the main things here. I don't think disto is overly OP, but it's still definitely competitive without the break. I would suggest (following a discussion with friends) seekers get a nerf as well because disto break is essential for dealing with them, but honestly disto would be very meta-worthy even without the break.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Greezt

caederon · July 13, 2017

These are the main things here. I don't think disto is overly OP, but it's still definitely competitive without the break. I would suggest (following a discussion with friends) seekers get a nerf as well because disto break is essential for dealing with them, but honestly disto would be very meta-worthy even without the break.

If part of any new re-balancing effort is directed at improving missiles, doesn't it make sense to wait and see how a whole boatload of improved missiles impact the state of the game before you go removing a defense against missiles (and also implementing some unspecified nerf to seeker mines).

Since this would necessitate a nerf to Cluster Missiles, too (wihich Ramalina suggests as +1s to reload time, which I am not sure would be enough in a 1-missile-break world) you're essentially breaking two things that are most definitely not broken (clusters and seeker mines) to remove the DF missile break.

Let's say you do that, concurrent with other buffs to various ships. Maybe the T3S, T2G and all the Strike Fighters are made viable choices by improving their components (namely missiles, which everyone wants buffed). Suddenly there are now a whole lot more missile-packing ships floating around, looking to use them... and you've basically just limited nearly all ships to one missile break.

Scouts might still have the maneuverability to get out of locks through LOS and erratic maneuvering, but the T1G sure doesn't, so you've substantially nerfed that ship in the process. Feedback Shield builds (which I have run extensively) suffer badly in missile-heavy environments, and suffer in Gunship-gunship combat... so you've basically invalidated that build, which was fringe to begin with.

Improve the stuff that is demonstrably bad first, see what that does, then look at the state of the game before you go tossing stuff on the chopping block.

- Despon

Edited July 13, 2017 by caederon

Verain · July 14, 2017

I'll remind you that the mine nerf also ended the "SIM bomber or don't bother" era of capturing enemy held sats.

I mean, the solution at the time was, burst/pods scouts, gunships, and plating bombers. That's still the solution today. A swarm of scouts is more effective today than before, but it is still not very effective. Strikes are still terrible at it. Bombers without plating are still suboptimal at it. It didn't increase meta depth, it decreased it.

I was thinking mostly of deliberate nerfs, but fair points, though I still use Bypass situationally.

Me too. But it was an unquestionable overnerf. Shield piercing in general was under budget at launch, but bypass simply got the magnitude gutted, and that was the entire move. The concern of the players was just too much armor piercing making ships dead that shouldn't really be dead, but the effect could have been given a longer duration and a lower magnitude, or the nerf not made as harshly.

Gunship pilots and battlescout pilots get very whiny if they have to make any effort to rule the meta, this is not a secret.

Ad hominem, for when you can't argue with facts!

However, given that basically no one voted with their components and switched to any of the choices that are not Distortion

During the bug patch? Plenty of people switched off of distortion. But was hard to judge how many. Most people didn't want to play in a world of cluster missiles and bomber spam. It was the worst time ever in GSF.

Feedback and Directional are supposedly fine in the current meta

Feedback doesn't really have much of a job in the current meta. It has some use depending on what's being run, but I sure as heck don't feel obligated to keep it on my bar. Post buff, it can actually damage a scout and contribute to a fight, but it isn't really optimal- and much of that is due to rocket pods scouts being favored by enough pilots to be meaningful, which would definitely not the be case if clusters couldn't be broken except by engine maneuvers or living in a metal tube. A gunship running feedback right now is protected by the fact that many other gunships are running a missile breaking disto- even under that umbrella, it is not in an amazing place or anything.

Particularly since I've done the math on cluster spam, and know that the burst damage is mediocre, and the that sustained damage is quite frankly pathetic

It's a rather large amount of damage that would be mostly unavoidable if not for distortion. It remains the premier component for dogfighting, and it deals over 800 damage to moving targets that wouldn't meaningfully be hit by pods. It's selected often enough that many people play counter components, even with it being a lot less raw burst and sustained that rocket pods. It also comes back online often enough to actually hit targets that cycle anti-missile cooldowns, unlike the other missiles.

Without distortion's mild OPness, and plating's Boolean operation, keeping it in check, it would itself go from mildly overtuned to very very common.

Your own proposed change to Distortion is basically to recreate this exact bug and then disable the Lock Time reduction upgrade. Your solution is to have very slightly slower Cluster Missile spam.

Right, which is fine. The reasoning behind that idea was that I wanted a solution that offered some protection from missiles without allowing distortion field owners to largely ignore missiles, while also offering protection that hit the longer lock-on missiles less hard than the faster lock-on missiles. The important piece is that distortion would offer some protection from missiles, just like every other shield does.

Remember, distortion's only benefit until the missile lockout works against blasters and railguns. It is weaker against all mines except seismic (where it ties all components except the odd charged plating), weaker against missiles, weaker against aoe, etc. Because it gives up shield arc to get its defense.

But would you really expect a strike fan to?

We're all strike fans. We're just trying to grow the meta to include strikes, not delete entire playstyles or "get revenge" on players who correctly choose components on live, which parts of your last few posts kinda sound like.

Again, we have a mostly functional meta right now. It could sure as heck be better though. Changes to components that everyone uses will have effects on time to kill, effects to time on target, and either punish or reward flying styles. The result of your "things that happen if you delete X" are mostly the number of meta ships shrinking, with those pliots forced into the shrinking pool of ships that are still meta. You lose experiences and builds, and gain... bombers, pretty much. I get that the game might look a little brighter for a strike here or there, but only a bit.

The game we have now includes scouts, gunships, and bombers. It also includes a few components that everyone uses. It's highly advisable to buff the strikes. It's reasonable to mildly nerf some of / all of the components that everyone uses (remember that I and many others are in favor of changes that result in mild nerfs to BO, TT, slug, ion, BLC, plating, and disto, and probably others), but the field of components that people don't use isn't just like quad lasers. Many of those components need large to moderate buffs. RFL, ion mine, etc. One way you can tell that the spots that the component part of the game is less healthy than it should be is to do the hypothetical removal of a good component, and notice that out of several theoretical possibilities, everyone moves in a pretty universal and predictable direction.

Hearing gunships and scouts whining about the cost of having to fly defensively against missiles is gratifying

Scouts didn't whine. Gunships did, because their jobs were dumb as hell. And they assuredly weren't whining about strikes, they were whining about scouts, who had been handed a trivial method to deal damage that involved effectively no roosting. This shifted the meta predictably to bombers, who don't give a hoot about any of that. It's a fine decision if you want some of your scouts and many of your gunships to switch to bomber, but strike was never the right call there either.

Bombers are meant to counter scouts on the satellite, and doing that well isn't a problem.

I'm reasonably convinced that two excellent burst/pod scouts versus an excellent plating bomber on the node results in a totally obliterated bomber, and reasonably quickly. I'm not 100% sure how that fight should resolve- it seems pretty normal for two ships to beat up one ship- but the pacing of that seems off for a ship type that has just one job (the scouts could go do anything else if needed). If a scout can't threaten a bomber at all, that play is probably not compelling, because then there's no synergy between a scout and a gunship or a scout and a bomber when it comes to pushing a lone bomber off of the node before he gets help. I don't know exactly what plating "should" be, though.

Specific ideas that I discuss are by no means like "the only path for X to work" or anything. I have a preferred way to buff strikes, but pretty much any strike buff that is reasonable and not wildly OP enough to kill one or more other ship types, will improve the meta.

BLCs being largely responsible for making the BLC scout a fine counter to: scouts, strikes, gunships, and bombers is a great example of how to make rock-paper-scissors balance about as broken as it can be on the overpowered end of the scale.

BLC isn't a counter to gunships, though. It's able to beat one, but by choosing it you are actually optimizing yourself more towards scouts and bombers, and giving up the weapons that are more dps against gunships.

Anyway, I don't know what type of changes are on the table anyway. I'd be fine with BLC totally losing, say, armor pen, as long as there's still a way for a scout to damage a plating bomber (without vaporizing it instantly or whatever). I'd be fine with plating changing to something that is more defensive against scouts and less defensive against the other ship types, or whatever. If you want to touch all the meta components, that's fine: you just have to touch them all, and consider intended time to kill in standing and running situations. You can't just be like, welp, here's nerfs to the components that we've told you (by leaving them this way for years) to master, go learn these other components, which we assume based on some spreadsheet are ok despite being told otherwise by you players for years, gl hf!

I'm tired enough of GSF's existing dysfunctions that I'm willing to back the devs if they want to make their next hand played on GSF balance to involve, "all in."

It is this attitude I have a problem with. GSF is a good game, and is mostly well balanced. You'd like players who have existing strategies to suffer for it, because it ultimately justifies a preconceived notion that these strategies and components are degenerate or OP. I don't feel that's good for anyone. Interestingly, we both generally agree on which components should be buffed and nerfed. But I think the goal should be a rich meta, not proving some point about how "gunships and scouts were OP all along, SEE I TOLD U".

We have a good game. Ideally, it will become a better game.

GSF Discussion: Ship Balance

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements