Discovery Gaming Community

For yours-truly's 2cents, I'll try to keep this in as short an outline as possible:

1. Discovery's current balance design is misdirected. 'Tis my belief that instead of trying to focus on group-specialization, 'twould be healthier to emphasize balance towards 1v1's.
   
2. This ethos in mind, 'tis my belief that an LF should be able to take down a BS if equipped to do so. Vice versa should also happen, that a BS can equip itself to be anti-fighter and easily beat LF's, but sacrifice defensibility towards other capital ships.
   
3. Here's my thoughts on how the ship classes ought to have been designed from the get-go:
   • All ships have access to both fighter- and bomber-type weaponry (SNACS, mortars, etc.).
     
   • LF's are faster and more agile, but have lower armor, lower powercore (can fire a SNAC every several seconds), lighter shields, and lower bots/bats: perfect for adrenaline-filled playstyles.
     
   • VHF's are bigger, slower, but have great armor, great powercore (can fire two SNACs comfortably), beefy freighter-like shields, and nice bots/bats: perfect for patient, trigger-discipline jousting playstyles.
     
   • HF's are a healthy balance between the two above, good armor, good powercore (can fire two SNACs with the right power management) allowing for people who'd like to be flexible and have both playstyles.
     
   • GB's will be the LF-equivalent of capitals. Can engage at ranges of 3km.
     
   • CU's will be the HF-equivalent of capitals. Can engage at ranges of 6km.
     
   • BS' are the VHF-equivalent of the capitals. Can engage at ranges of 9km.
     
   • CA's... Well, ideally once Librelancer is up, we can code AI to be much better, and therefore CA's can gear their fighters to anything from anti-snub to anti-capital, or a fleet good enough for both.
     
4. If that's the case, then why would anyone wanna fly capitals, if a cheap LF has a fair chance at taking down an expensive BS? A few things, really:
   • The larger the ship, the larger the margin for error due to being able tank hits far better. That means the fighter's on their toes more while the capital worries less what with their reliable shields and armor.
     
   • The larger the ship, the farther their engagement range, but the slower their turret reaction is to close-range engagements; this means that larger ships ought to be able to snipe fighters from afar (imagine an LF trying to dodge 4.5km/s bolts from a BS), but once the smaller ship gets in knife-fight range the larger ship's slow turrets won't be able to react adequately.
     
   • That is, unless the larger ship decides to purposefully equip faster, more agile-swiveling, but closer-range weapons. Specializing towards the fastest-moving turrets means they'll eat snubs for breakfast, but in turn if they meet sniper-capitals they'll have to painfully move in to attack, while the sniper rains alpha strike after alpha strike from a safe distance.
     
   • Oh yeah... EVERY ship shall have a CD. Eyyup. That means even BS's shall have CD's that can swivel 360-degrees in any direction, making sure it's not that simple as cruising over to close range (unless they're distracted, of course).
     
5. Basing balance more on risk vs reward for setup, engagement ranges and playstyle would make for interesting battles:
   • Same-class or similar-class fights will feel more balanced towards honing your kind of playstyle.
     
   • Smaller ships fighting against larger ships will encourage a host of new tactics, ranging from trying approach from weird angles where their weapons won't be able to react in time, to cloaking, to maybe having a brawler capital fleet JD-ing on top of sniper-capitals, etc.
     

Thoughts?

Too much effort that would result in people being upset with changes. Majority of people actually like or at least accept the game as it is and these major overhauls are far far from what Disco needs or would survive. We need small quality-of-life improvements that are not changing how the game is played but enhancing it.

Never touch a running system. The way things work right now are fine and don't need a complete overhaul that hasn't been tested.

Yea uh no, sorry a Light Fighter should not be capable of touching a Battleship. These points make no sense.

Ehh.. Doesn't sound very good.

(07-26-2018, 07:48 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: [ -> ]Never touch a running system. The way things work right now are fine and don't need a complete overhaul that hasn't been tested.

(07-26-2018, 07:47 PM)SnakThree Wrote: [ -> ]Too much effort that would result in people being upset with changes. Majority of people actually like or at least accept the game as it is and these major overhauls are far far from what Disco needs or would survive. We need small quality-of-life improvements that are not changing how the game is played but enhancing it.

Hey, I did say 'twas only yours-truly's 2cents. Doesn't have to be implemented right the-f-now, but 'twould be nice to have a least a fair bit of discussion about it.

'Tis a little... ehm, disappointing that the first thing thou thinks of about this thread is whether 'twould upset people.

ANY change upsets people, no matter what. But I'd like to help address the fundamental problems, rather than beating-around-the-bush solutions.

(07-26-2018, 08:01 PM)Kalhmera Wrote: [ -> ]Yea uh no, sorry a Light Fighter should not be capable of touching a Battleship. These points make no sense.

Why not? Th'aren't thinking enough outside of the box! This kind of balance would allow:
> snubs to be able to participate alongside capitals, and actually feel useful
> people who like to blap things from 9km afar, OR engage in Star Wars-esque capital v capital brawler battles
> Luke Skywalker to destroy his very own death star

Don't go bashing snak because he makes valid points. This idea is by far the most insulting thing I have ever read.

What's the issue with the current system ?

Cap ships are currently balanced so that certain classes cant 1v1 others by nature, and snubs are also entirely fine..

(07-26-2018, 08:04 PM)Kalhmera Wrote: [ -> ]Don't go bashing snak because he makes valid points. This idea is by far the most insulting thing I have ever read.

Really? Insulting?

[sighs]

I didn't bash Snak-dear, actually I thought 'twas being as respectful of the fact that people dislike broad changes at a short-moment's notice.

Do please help clarify how I was being insulting, please?

(07-26-2018, 08:04 PM)Lucas Wrote: [ -> ]What's the issue with the current system ?

Cap ships are currently balanced so that certain classes cant 1v1 others by nature, and snubs are also entirely fine..

The issue with the current system is how it segragates caps from fighters, alienating two entire player groups from each other, and giving incentive for either to look at themselves as 'elites' (snubs being purists, caps being cool) and the other being '<insert>whores' (snubs being snubwhores, caps being capwhores).

EDIT: Also, that it frustrates one and the other that they're unable to touch each other.

All I wish is for a system where even the newest player would still be able to participate adequately against 'cap' players.

Before Turret zoom and turret steering, a fighter could get inside a capital's effective sight lines, and loop around them, slowly chewing the capital up. Fighters were king.

Now, it takes about 4 very careful fighters to take down a battlecruiser, and two or three to kill a gb.

So, I do agree that perhaps we've gone a little far into the direction of capitals being a better lever on personal skill...but I still can't agree with the OP saying that we should make it entirely 1v1. Still, if it is possible, I do think fighters deserve a buff against capitals. It is extremely disheartening to have one capital count as 3 or 4 guys in a groupfight...even though, realistically...they ought be.