07-31-2015, 09:31 AM
Okay, so, since I was taking a break back then, what was the reason for reverting the short-lived buff for LFs, where they got their highly-damaging, short-ranged burstfire guns?
07-31-2015, 09:31 AM
07-31-2015, 09:50 AM
I was wondering that too, I miss my 4 Flemmenwerfers on my Tiger Shark that did about ~6k damage
07-31-2015, 09:51 AM
Probably because they would be overpowered when in groups of 3-4 or more. The one that gets focused just dodges forever while the others actually do damage because of that buff.
They need another way to get stronger, maybe buffing the armor so they don't get instakilled by a nuke would be a good place to start.
They need another way to get stronger, maybe buffing the armor so they don't get instakilled by a nuke would be a good place to start.
07-31-2015, 10:28 AM
In that case, it's no longer a light fighter, but an over-manuverable heavy fighter , which would make more QQ...
On the other hand, everything can turn OP when in a group of 3 or 4. So that poins seems somewhat invalid.
Lfs would make sense as a hit and run type of ships, which would be possible with what
On the other hand, everything can turn OP when in a group of 3 or 4. So that poins seems somewhat invalid.
Lfs would make sense as a hit and run type of ships, which would be possible with what
07-31-2015, 11:04 AM
I'd buff turn rates instead.
07-31-2015, 11:08 AM
Maybe, but they already turn pretty fast, I'v pleayed cat and mouse with a vhf in Conn on my Hayabusha for 15 minutes , before I stood still so he could blast me. Also, ever tried to catch a Liberator ? 
07-31-2015, 11:08 AM
(07-31-2015, 09:31 AM)sindroms Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, so, since I was taking a break back then, what was the reason for reverting the short-lived buff for LFs, where they got their highly-damaging, short-ranged burstfire guns?
It was broken and overpowered. Have a look at a fairly bad vs. Yber during the buffed LF guns period.
07-31-2015, 11:49 AM
The idea for LFs was the following: Make them much less maneuverable (about as fast turning as VHFs), keep the low health and the small models (for some anyway), add these burst damage guns for them and make them be interceptors.
The basic principles were going to be this:
- LFs shouldn't have high survivability, they should go down faster than VHFs (reflected in lower HP as it is now)
- Their turning should be a little less fast than VHFs to compensate for the extra damage (this was not applied unfortunately, which made the LFs OP)
- They should also have higher burst damage than VHFs
- They should be on equal or slightly worse footing in 1v1 fight with a VHF, but should do a lot of damage in group fights where focus can be kept off them (so the burst guns and LFs themselves required a lot of tweaking)
- They should have faster cruise speed than most (this already happens)
In this way what we know as an LF would be effectively an interceptor/space superiority fighter which focuses on damage and linear speed over survivability (death to bombers, and in group fights VHFs), while VHFs would be essentially a multi-role combat fighter. This would mean that now LFs were the best to employ against bombers, while none of the classes in the fighters were specifically "best" against VHFs, but VHFs themselves weren't the "best" at dealing with any of the classes either (except LFs).
It was going to fit in with missiles that track well, in that the missiles would keep it sort of equal across some of the smaller LF models like Liberator, and only VHFs and above had missile slots so that gave them something unique. Of course then missiles had to be nerfed because of issues in group fights (missile spam being impossible to defend against because of how CMs catch one missile at a time when they should catch all within radius for this balance to work), and the whole plan fell on its head kinda. There was another problem: if VHF guns were to be an effective tool against LFs at all (including some of the ones with the tiny models), some of them would either have to have agility nerfed into the ground (worse than most VHFs, meh) or they'd have to have model replacements. Since it was effectively only me working on this part of balance, we decided to reverse it since it would in the end require remodels to be viable against enemies that are guns only, and homing missiles at that point we were gearing to start replacing with other mechanics.
So yea if you have ideas on what else we could do with LFs, tell me and maybe something will come out of it.
The basic principles were going to be this:
- LFs shouldn't have high survivability, they should go down faster than VHFs (reflected in lower HP as it is now)
- Their turning should be a little less fast than VHFs to compensate for the extra damage (this was not applied unfortunately, which made the LFs OP)
- They should also have higher burst damage than VHFs
- They should be on equal or slightly worse footing in 1v1 fight with a VHF, but should do a lot of damage in group fights where focus can be kept off them (so the burst guns and LFs themselves required a lot of tweaking)
- They should have faster cruise speed than most (this already happens)
In this way what we know as an LF would be effectively an interceptor/space superiority fighter which focuses on damage and linear speed over survivability (death to bombers, and in group fights VHFs), while VHFs would be essentially a multi-role combat fighter. This would mean that now LFs were the best to employ against bombers, while none of the classes in the fighters were specifically "best" against VHFs, but VHFs themselves weren't the "best" at dealing with any of the classes either (except LFs).
It was going to fit in with missiles that track well, in that the missiles would keep it sort of equal across some of the smaller LF models like Liberator, and only VHFs and above had missile slots so that gave them something unique. Of course then missiles had to be nerfed because of issues in group fights (missile spam being impossible to defend against because of how CMs catch one missile at a time when they should catch all within radius for this balance to work), and the whole plan fell on its head kinda. There was another problem: if VHF guns were to be an effective tool against LFs at all (including some of the ones with the tiny models), some of them would either have to have agility nerfed into the ground (worse than most VHFs, meh) or they'd have to have model replacements. Since it was effectively only me working on this part of balance, we decided to reverse it since it would in the end require remodels to be viable against enemies that are guns only, and homing missiles at that point we were gearing to start replacing with other mechanics.
So yea if you have ideas on what else we could do with LFs, tell me and maybe something will come out of it.
07-31-2015, 11:58 AM
Blodo, what would happen if you would make LFs be the only ships capable of mounting missiles, or perhaps them receiving a specific Class6 missile for long-range engagements, similar to the current Sidewinder at 2k range.
This would give them a unique feel, while keeping their current stats the same. Perhaps indeed try tweaking things like the range of the guns instead, giving them C7 weapons with 1.2k range.
Perhaps try toying around with the idea of a C6 disruptor with a custom range or custom effects, leaving the LF with only a Torpedo slot so they can blow themselves up if they wish.
Also, homing missiles in general are fun. Don't drop them. Though perhaps move them to a dedicated ''FaF'' ship, rather than spreading them over different types.
This would give them a unique feel, while keeping their current stats the same. Perhaps indeed try tweaking things like the range of the guns instead, giving them C7 weapons with 1.2k range.
Perhaps try toying around with the idea of a C6 disruptor with a custom range or custom effects, leaving the LF with only a Torpedo slot so they can blow themselves up if they wish.
Also, homing missiles in general are fun. Don't drop them. Though perhaps move them to a dedicated ''FaF'' ship, rather than spreading them over different types.
07-31-2015, 12:08 PM
The more specific stuff allowed per class the more confusion and the less logic in it after all.
Like, what, for example, prevents bombers from mounting fighter guns? For sure it is not a weak powercore.
The more weird and specific and unique stuff you do the more questions "why?" appears on that. Balance shall not dictate the way "technology" goes. Balance must balance things, though not make them nearly equal.
Like, what, for example, prevents bombers from mounting fighter guns? For sure it is not a weak powercore.
The more weird and specific and unique stuff you do the more questions "why?" appears on that. Balance shall not dictate the way "technology" goes. Balance must balance things, though not make them nearly equal.