+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Discovery Mod Balance (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=31)
+---- Thread: Mortars and why they should [edit] STAY (/showthread.php?tid=125578)
Pages:
1
2
Mortars and why they should [edit] STAY - nOmnomnOm - 02-02-2015
Alright I am going to keep it simple to not bore anyone reading this. If you want me to explain a little further than I will.
SO I heard that mortar (cruiser) ranges have decreased to the range of cerbs... really I find that absurd and here are the reasons why:
1) Mortars in history are artillery that from from long range. Farther range than cannons if i recall correctly. The point is they are a mortar because they fire slow but do devastating damage at long range if you can hit your target. It is difficult to hit, yes, but at a great reward.
2) Giving it the same range as cerbs makes it a no-brainer to choose cerbs over mortars. Before in a battle you can choose mortars if you keep your distance from a cerb-ship-player and fire accurately. You could actually win and be helpful.
3) There are different cruisers with different capabilities. Some are larger some are smaller. Some can tank and others perform better at long range since they are weak. The difference in ranges for guns allowed the ships to be used in different scenarios and played differently.
4) SKILL plays a important part in this. Why do I hear people complain that there should be skill involved in pvps to win and then a gun that needs aim skill is then nurfed.
It is the equivalent to in a game nerfing a sniper's range to a SMG.
5) The argument that the gun is garbage is complete bollocks. Guns are for preference based. I am for example a player that likes hard hitting but slow. There are others that like fast hitting and speedy shots but low damage over time. The game has all these different options to customize your load-out and choose your pvp style! Changing the ranges to be the same just ruins the choice factor and forces the player to just play one way and one way only.
6) Motar is the same as like the mini-razor, SNAC, ARCHANGELS, etc. They have all a risk factor but a greater reward. I don't care if someone argues that one gun is more efficent than another. If you can aim and have great skill in it then you will have an advantage or at least on the same play field.
I'll probably think of more reasons but this is the essence of it. I dont want to write a whole essay with example of my battles with mortars but I can say from experience that they are great guns to use if you know how to use them and you know... learn2aim.
Disclaimer: This post is based entirely on a rumor that the poster didn't bother to confirm. Light Mortar ranges are unaltered.
-Haste
Note: This disclaimer was written a few days after the issue was over and Haste thinking i didn't ask anyone before posting.
Ps: no where here did i write anything hateful towards devs that they should accuse me of what they did.
To make it more clear. I Don't Hate You.
-nOmnomnOm
RE: Mortars and why you should LEAVE THEM AS THEY WERE - t0l - 02-02-2015
Mortars do massive damage. Perfect for decloak instas on unsuspecting cruisers and securing the blue.
Fire-and-forget nature allows you to fire off shots and continue dodging. Cerbs require sustained damage on target and can even hamper situational awareness.
This change (if implemented) also gives people incentive to not sit at 3k and blast battleships who can't do anything.
It also gives more incentive to use forward-gun cruisers as they are no longer just Light Mortars with like 500 more range.
RE: Mortars and why you should LEAVE THEM AS THEY WERE - nOmnomnOm - 02-02-2015
(02-02-2015, 02:32 AM)Tal Wrote: This change (if implemented) also gives people incentive to not sit at 3k and blast battleships who can't do anything.
It also gives more incentive to use forward-gun cruisers as they are no longer just Light Mortars with like 500 more range.
you forget that you can either get closer and pound the mortar ships by cruising up towards them, hitting Z and then up and Z again. This allows you to charge while getting faster than thrust speed.
Mortar is ALL about the range difference and if you can aim correctly.
at 3k distance another can easily dodge the incoming fire too. Not too hard.
RE: Mortars and why you should LEAVE THEM AS THEY WERE - t0l - 02-02-2015
By the time you cruise up on someone, they can CD you, continue battering you, or just run. I mean, Battleships are pretty handicapped. Before you get sufficient core back, they can thrust away to get distance.
Large battleships like the Legate and Turtle have difficulty dodging mortars even at range.
Mortar isn't all about range. Spazzy used to use a triple HM dread to get decloak instas.
Think of Cerbs and Mortars as 8.33s and 2.00s. Two different weapons, but same premise.
RE: Mortars and why you should LEAVE THEM AS THEY WERE - nOmnomnOm - 02-02-2015
The argument that you can merely run away is invalid in this discussion as far as I can see.
Large battleships can tank cruiser motars and fire back their own. I see no problem.
The mortar's strength is it's range. Also you are talking about HMs and not LMs. with LMs you need range and HMs are not the topic here.
RE: Mortars and why you should LEAVE THEM AS THEY WERE - t0l - 02-02-2015
They function on the same principle. The LABC can fire what, 5 before it runs out of core? Four mortars and whatever else it decides to blast you with are going to tingle pretty damn badly.
Large battleships against heavy or even medium cruisers are disadvantaged due to the fact that cruisers are significantly smaller and more agile, making them hard to hit with return fire.
RE: Mortars and why you should LEAVE THEM AS THEY WERE - nOmnomnOm - 02-02-2015
(02-02-2015, 02:47 AM)Tal Wrote: They function on the same principle. The LABC can fire what, 5 before it runs out of core? Four mortars and whatever else it decides to blast you with are going to tingle pretty damn badly.
They fire that many but slow and not all at once. Plus you wont hit all of them if the other dude is skilled and can dodge.
(02-02-2015, 02:47 AM)Tal Wrote: Large battleships against heavy or even medium cruisers are disadvantaged due to the fact that cruisers are significantly smaller and more agile, making them hard to hit with return fire.
So what? Lets make mortars useless so that my big ship can kill that annoying cruiser?
RE: Mortars and why you should LEAVE THEM AS THEY WERE - Jayce - 02-02-2015
>implying anyone in a Cruiser uses LMs to kill a BS
If you're not LITERALLY AWFUL, you use Cerbs.
RE: Mortars and why you should LEAVE THEM AS THEY WERE - t0l - 02-02-2015
A certain American today showed me that he could chainfire four light mortars in his LABC without difficulty. A cruiser or small-ish vessel caught at short range will have little time to react should something pop out and blast him.
Mortars aren't useless. I can see them filling a role with people who are less handy at multi-tasking, or used as accurate weapons for maximum pinpoint damage on a hull. Dealing good damage before someone can bot or bat up is always a plus.
Also, psychological effects of being shot with mortars.
edit: muh lags
RE: Mortars and why you should LEAVE THEM AS THEY WERE - t0l - 02-02-2015
also see jayces post
pretty much sums up cruisers
source: i fly a thresher i guess