Discovery Gaming Community

Note that we are talking about fighter class missiles here


Changes that are being done to fighter class ships and equipment in 4.85
(these are necessary for balance among fighter class ships and balance towards caps)

• - vanilla ships take as much damage from explosives as non-vanilla ones
  
  - all equipment (guns, thrusters, cm, shields ++) was made more explosion resistant (basically you loose lvl 9 guns in a VHF right as you run out of bots)
  
  - CMs are one of the most explosive-resistant components (they are the last thing left)
  

This allows:

Possible changes to damage done by explosives

• - generally explosives can have about 80% more damage than in 4.84
  
  example:
  Nukes 17k instead of 10k => every LF dies to one Nuke (as it should be imo)
  Cannonball 7.8k instead of some 4.6k
  
  Now in 4.84 for example Cannonball does the 4.6k damage to non-vanilla, while to vanilla it does about 18k damage (depending on ship).
  In 4.84 it takes some 3 nukes to blast all guns off a non-vanilla ship, with these changed it takes about 8 nukes.
  

==================================================================

Lately (last 4 months) use of explosives on the RP server has increased dramatically. Due to the changes above the explosives are in 4.85 much more user-friendly, so there are some concerns that the trend might continue or even get worse. Of particular concern are "missile boats" (mounting often 4 or more missile launchers), specially when it comes to coming HFs

There are several possible ways to avoid the "overuse" of explosives.


Possible ways to limit overuse of explosives

• 1. Introducing cargo space requirements
  
  - Ammo would take some cargo space as well, for example 0.2 per one missile, leading to 70 of them taking 14 cargo space.
  - The max. 70 limit would stay active as well
  - Armor upgrades (universal) take different ammount of cargo space so you can spare space by using lower upgrade (example: MK8 (2.5) - 20 cargo, MK7 (2.35 - not decided yet) 12 Cargo)
  
  - another ways to spare cargo is for example use new rippers (10k damage) instead of nukes
  
  Here off course the numbers can vary a lot, but in general we have come to numbers that allow the following (they are not final)
  LFs - mk8 armor, 70 Nukes, 70 Train CD
  VHF - mk8 armor (20 cargo) , 70 Nukes (14) , 70 Cannonballs (21) , 70 Firestalkers (14) = 67
  Bombers - mk8 armor, 70 Nukes, 70 Train CDs, 70 Nova torps
  
  Pros
  
  - relatively simple to implement, only some small cargo space balancing might be needed on some ships
  - introduces choices even for people that do want to use a lot of missiles, they just have to sacrifice something
  
  Cons
  - "full" load takes whole cargo space limiting carrying of RP commodities or looting of commodities in fight
  
  
  2. Limiting number of slots that can carry missiles as well as guns
  
  - make missiles use a separate gun class (or 2-3) and remove all guns that use the current class (for example classes 4-6 might be used)
  - change hardpoints on all ships so that only 2 per ship can mount this class (missile one) as well as other gun classes, while others can mount only gun classes
  
  Pros
  
  - ships keep same cargo space no matter what they mount allowing more commodities to be carried
  
  Cons
  
  - doesn't take torps and mines into account
  - needs relatively extended editing (all ships in game (hardpoints and infocards), all missiles, removing the guns that use the slot)
  - missiles would need to be "squeezed" into only 1-3 classes, which might possibly allow low level ships to mount missiles of formerly much higher level (example Starblazer with Cannonball)
  
  3. Reducing refire rate of explosies
  Most explosives have 1.0 refire (torps 0.5). This can be easily reduced a bit
  
  Pros
  
  - easy to implement
  
  Cons
  
  - limited effect ("uber/useless" effect), even with 0.2 refire you can fire/drop one per each joust (so basically no change), refire even lower than that might keep people from ever using them
  
  4. Making explosives use energy when fired/dropped
  This is already done for Nukes to keep starfliers and similar from using them, some much higher energy use can be included
  
  Pros
  
  - easy to implement
  - easy to diversify between different explosives (nukes, torps, missiles)
  
  Cons
  
  - controversial effects: if the energy use is high enough to keep VHFs from firing more than 2 it would need to be around 6k, basically keeping LFs from ever using them, so it turns out as most limiting
  

==============================================================

Vote for the options above or combinations and add comments related to the numbers. Results will directly influence what comes in first 4.85 public beta.

I voted no to a change in damage output

And i think if we want to limit the amount of missiles equiped on a fighter it should be done through seprate missile slots.

Yes to making missiles cause more damage or we might find them even unable to be effective against NPC (buffed ones)
I also think the cargo requirements is all that's needed as it still allows the choice of full missiles (I don't do it but I don't really mind it) but also comes with a penalty that allow for that kind of important decision.
Anymore on top of the cargo requirement may be to much of a disuassion.
Nice how that same decision process will come into effect with armour as well.

Seperate missile slots seems like a butt spanikingly good idea.

Makes missiles more interesting.

Have gun slots then missile slots not Gun/Missile mounts. This way everyone can have missiles but use them at oppertune moments and value them more. Hence eliminating missile spam.

I have a question before I start thinking about how to cast my vote.
This missile only slots thing.
How exactly would that be done?

For example, I now have 6 guns on my VHF.
How will it be if this is done?

1. 6 guns + 2 missiles?

2. 4 guns + 2 slots for either missile or gun?

3. 5 guns + 1 missile?

4. 5 guns + 1 slot for either missile or gun?

Etc.

Mjolnir badly worded the slots bit.

A vhf can mount full guns if he wishes. But only 2(or whatever number is decided) will be capable of mounting a missile.

THAT's what he meant.

so.. number 2 in your example swift

Yeah it's why I didn't go with the slots idea, I feel that it elimnates choices. I also only have one Fighter/Bomber that uses missiles, the rest are all-gun loadouts.
I also on that note don't mind if a player choses to scarifice cargo for missile loadout, I have won many battles against missile loadouts using CMs and CDs.
I think the choices for loadouts (and consequentially tactics) should remain but the added cargo penalty helps in creating a more balanced decision.

Edit: I'm a slow typer noted the post above mine, I still feel the whole range of decision be allowed but carries it's penalties in game mechanics.

' Wrote:I voted no to a change in damage output

And i think if we want to limit the amount of missiles equiped on a fighter it should be done through seprate missile slots.

Agreed, and by limiting missiles on like 90 % of fighters there should be also types of fighters that can mount dunno 4 missile and 2 gunslots or something like that .. (I don't like what i've just said) BUT it is ballancer's responsibility to keep diversity alive .... and make Disco free for all in loadout sense!

Skoko

I am thinking perhaps missle damage could be increased, but not the top of the line mines. 10k for a nuke seems quite good, unless something else is being changed with mines.

Yes to damage increase, though an 80% increase may be a bit excessive.

The only limiting factor I like is giving ships a max of 2 missile/gun slots. Cargo requirement seems to limit LFs from using missiles, as does significant energy consumption. All fighters should be able to mount/use at least two missiles.