Discovery Gaming Community

I've yet to see a single compelling argument in this thread for bringing the old cerbs, which essentially did nothing but double as extra primaries, back. I keep hearing "they were better", "the new system is bad", "you don't need variety", "it's causing people to leave/not fly caps".

Those are statements, not explanations. What the removal of Cerbs has done is shifted the meta of battleship combat away from heavies to lights, which are more capable of dodging mortars and less capable of dodging saturated fire. In layman's terms, multiple shots are better than one against a smaller ship, and that's edge heavies had that the cerb nerf took away.

Is this a good system? Not particularly, but it is more or less on par with the way .85 worked save for the addition of TS/TZ. It's not particularly worse than the old meta of heavies everywhere which could throw what were basically an extra four super prims at long range and dominate the battlefield.

I don't think bringing back old cerbs is the answer at all. I do think that the playing field could stand to be leveled a bit. Some ideas I threw around for this back in the balance chat awhile back were:

- Increasing the energy consumption for mortars, making it more difficult for light battleships to dodge around and spam them with impunity.

- Buffing battleship missiles, giving heavy battleships yet another edge against lighter ones which can more easily dodge.

- Switching the current system of "five prims on lighter caps" to be the other way around, since it is heavies that need more shots to deal damage, not lights. With some of the better heavy battleships however I think that might need to come with the removal of a heavy slot.

Or removing the concept of Light/Heavy battleship and adjusting ship dimensions to fit that change that would remove the issue altogether. Which is a huge chore in on itself.

(04-15-2017, 10:49 PM)Chills Wrote: [ -> ]Wesker, you were not the only one whose opinion was that the nerfed Cerbs are a bad idea for cap combat.

The time cerbs are nerfed to the actual low range the many duels and battles I had fought with my capital ships showed how important
the long range cerbs were for heavy battleships.
Where heavy battleships had the chance to actually do damage on high range while still being on a range at which they could dodge fire, now they are going under in a long range mortar combat. Lighter battleships have no problems dodging any mortars on even lower ranges down to 2k, and evade enough primary gun fire on the same range to survive a fight with any heavy battleship. This makes heavy battleships unsatisfying to play.
Even the most feared heavy battleship, the valor, stands nearly no chance to a medium battleship like the liberty dreadnought, as many fights like a recent duel between wesker and an overlord player showed. While Wesker, as everyone knows a skilled cap player, was only able to scratch a little the overlord with his valor, he took a huge amount of damage and left the fight. I duelled the same overlord then with my long range setup valor and only barely won thanks to spamming 2 battleship missles. Flying a lighter battleship takes much less effort now, it's just mainly straving and firing prims and mortars backyard. Handling a heavy battleship is still much more difficult and the only chance for less skilled players to win is to get a cloak and buttcloak the lighter battleship, but oh well, cloak CDs are there, yeah ez win for light battleships. People don't even want to fly heavy battleships such like valor now. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/results?q=discov...p=CAI%253D. 8 Dunkirks and one Crecy, on the GRN side 2 Valors and 6 Battlecruiser. This video represents the past balance changes. This is the result of the huge nerfes for the valors aswell for the crecys. The restult of the event: Draw.
To win the last New London raids, which Wesker had recorded and uploaded to Youtube, we had to cruise + engine kill up to the Dunkirks. I can't imagine this was very enjoyable for the BAF players and for me it wasn't either. It was not challenging and over in an instant.
The old cerberus were important for heavy battleships in order to give them a fighting chance against lighter caps. Right now heavy caps are going under, the gap in effectiveness between light/medium and heavy caps is much too huge right now to make capital ship combat enjoyable for both sides.

- RNS-Ressentiment, sometimes CNS-Nutella, Mount.Rongyu

^This

Also, I never was around for the old cerb days. But I can say this: People say those fights were actually fun. But todays fights, to me, seem a little dull. And people I know hate them. Bringing old cerbs back is a good start, but also reverting the Valor FG to its original, and reverting their GRN prims to 800 ms like they used to be. Since their prims are one of if not the most powerful in the game, why would you make them shoot faster than the rest. That's not balance, people. That's bias. Anyways, I thought I'd put my two cents in on this one, since I love caps. I would like to give old cerbs a shot. The game was balanced back then, I mean, watch old vids from 4.85 till when they nerfed them. Things seemed good. Then again, I wasn't around then, so I didn't experience things for myself. I feel like, bringing old cerbs back is essential to solving the aforementioned problem of Valors having to EK up to smaller battleships. Because old cerbs had decent range, one didn't need to get to prime range to fight or hit their target, and didn't have to stock up on Trebuchet's to hit them at long range, which are hard to aim on thin-profiled ships. Thus, they could stay far away and shoot, not having to EK to get to close range to hit them. Eh, anyways.

That's my input. Cue the criticism.

This is what needs to happen. capital ships seem to be less used, even ignored. Hope cerbs will be changed

When ever I toyed around with caps and cerbs I did find them extremely underwhelming, yes I think they look
and sound amazing but they lacked the they lack the short range punch and long reach to find them useful, more often then not I used the razors or mortars because they were just... better, I think giving the Cerberus turrets a range boost wouldn't hurt the game much, and that seems to be (the vocal groups) opinion.

Now I'm not saying make them system length weapons, but I do think they should be in between the medium and long ranges. Just my thoughts on the matter.

(04-15-2017, 09:39 PM)Wesker Wrote: [ -> ]average "cap raid" just 4 battleships colliding and accusing each other of ganking in some way shape or form.

Indeed. To kill an enemy battleship one has to charge as close as possible, hold the right mouse and wait. I rarely,
if ever see a long range combat these days. Because such happen only if there is a 1vs1 between a heavy battleship like Turtle and a light one like Murmillo. Close range encounters also seem wrong from an inRP point of view. You have to sacrifice half of your crew and cripple your ship beyond reason to get the enemy.

(04-15-2017, 09:39 PM)Wesker Wrote: [ -> ]The reason being is simple, ever since 4.87, all the cruiser and gunboat rebalance changes (aside from the removal of cruiser razors), where terrible.

I sort of quote SkyNet here. Gunboats have been nerfed to the ground.

(04-15-2017, 09:39 PM)Wesker Wrote: [ -> ]What I'm basically getting at is, the current battleship stats, weaponry, and what you call "diversity" is piss.

True again. The most used battleship weapons are Heavy Mortars and Primarys. This is not diversity. It is sad to see, because there are so many ideas on which the development team could base new capital ship weaponry! I throw here few examples.


Vertically launched missiles. Low turning rate, looong range and powerful, but with low ammo count. Titan has made something like this, but I cannot be arsed to search the Skype chats.


Yes, ammo based "naval" artillery.


Why not plasma/particle beams? But a problem may arise here... People would start using them to incinerate snubs.

And what about battleship, (battle)cruiser and gunboat dropped mines?

(04-15-2017, 09:39 PM)Wesker Wrote: [ -> ]changes particularly to cerberus turrets and primary turrets, need to be reverted back. As it is with the current stats dreadnoughts are more unappealing than they were in 4.87, never mind how bad cruisers are for anything at this point.

Reverting back would bring back the green firestorms, because Cerbs would be "solve all problems" weapons again. However, now heavy caps do not stand a chance against any at least a little experienced light battleship. I disagree with your statement about cruisers. (Battle)cruisers are the last surviving ships when it comes to capital ship raids. You assemble more or less balanced fleets and clash. First one side looses battleships.. Then you are left with 3 battleships against 2 (battle)cruiser which are pain in the arse to get rid of. Kinda funny to watch or experience, but annoying after a while.

(04-15-2017, 09:39 PM)Wesker Wrote: [ -> ]This is my last time posting one of these, I wasted my time spamming these complaints when cerbs were first nerfed and everyone thought I was crazy for saying it was wrong. Now a lot of those same people are seeing otherwise.

This matter is still very complicated. Half of the server wanted long range Cerbs back, while the other half was celebrating.

Edit:

(04-15-2017, 11:48 PM)hubjump Wrote: [ -> ]Also can we get house cerbs?

I don't see why not, the point is: diversity

I dont fly caps either, but Wesker is right because too many people on skype are complaining about exactly the same thing. And those are expereinced players who have been here a lt longer than me, and yes a lot of people are unsatisfied with the new setup.
My question is:

Whay are caps being nerfed and snubs are getting all the love from devs???

I support Wesker's thread totally

Agreed with OP , when will those Extremely bad call Capital changes stop ?

My few cents on ideas here :

All battleships need not little , but lots of love to fix ,
Thrusters for BS , no ,
Cruiser Razors back , please yes ,
Range BS Cerberus back , yes ,
Cruiser anti-shield missiles , yes , but keep standard anti hull to ,
Bring back Battleship anti-hull missiles , keep anti-shield as option to ,
I like Broad side option idea , you can do more damage if you open your broadside , but you open your self for attack to , you can play safe or go to offensive .

Quote:Why are caps being nerfed and snubs are getting all the love from devs???

^ Just evil rumors i tell ya !

(04-16-2017, 11:12 AM)sasapinjic Wrote: [ -> ]words

Yes, good ideas in general, especially regarding the cruiser and battleship missiles. I say it would be better to everybody if we could choose from wide array of weapons. But when something new is "added", something old goes out. This is called replacing, not adding. (The last bomber weapons are an exception)

(04-16-2017, 01:40 AM)Durandal Wrote: [ -> ]- Increasing the energy consumption for mortars, making it more difficult for light battleships to dodge around and spam them with impunity.

- Buffing battleship missiles, giving heavy battleships yet another edge against lighter ones which can more easily dodge.

- Switching the current system of "five prims on lighter caps" to be the other way around, since it is heavies that need more shots to deal damage, not lights. With some of the better heavy battleships however I think that might need to come with the removal of a heavy slot.

I generally prefer moving forward to moving backward.
I fly caps not often enough to say whether this would change things, but just saying "revert" is imo generally not the solution. There were reasons it was changed in the first place.