(01-28-2020, 09:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote: [ -> ]The reality many people face is that if they log first and go out looking for interactions, other people will be able to choose the ship class that is best to kill the person who is already logged:
- by looking at the level of the player in the player list: below level 50 probably a a fighter, between 50 and 60 a fighter or a bomber, level 60-70 a GB, and so on.
- by being told via pm, group chat, or discord what ship someone is flying by people who saw them and are possibly already fighting them. Official factions have "alert channel" specifically for this purpose.
- by being seen, and then having the person run to log a more suitable ship class. Even docking right in front of someone and changing chars to attack them is legal, as long as they havent already started a pvp engagement.
This is why rock-scissor-paper balancing is bad if skill has less to do with the outcome than choice of ship: People dont pick simultaneously at random, but after they saw what they other person has.
Sounds to me like you're playing with people who are not outright cheating, but their intent is to win, rather than have fun. There's an easy way to deal with people like that, you don't interact with them.
I think we can all agree that what you're describing isn't In the spirit of the game, and isn't fun. It's also completely impossible to enforce any sort of rules around, though I suspect you could enforce something around docking to change chars to engage - if we can enforce it after an interaction has started, there's no reason we couldn't use the same methods for this, it'd just be as simple as stating "the interaction starts when the ship is seen on scanners and can be identified".
But here's the deal, no amount of enforcement is going to help this, because these people are already skirting the rules on technicalities, using outside methods of communication, etc. I doubt that the GMs could bring this sort of behavior under control. But you've got a VERY good way to do it. Just don't play with them. If they don't want to play fair, don't play with them. It seems like you know who the people that do this are, so if you see them, just go somewhere else and don't play with them. Find some people to play with who do want to have fair engagements and have fun.
This isn't a balance issue, it's a people issue. Even if you buff the bomber guns some, it won't matter, because the people that are taking advantage of you now will just change their tactics to get their edge some other way. You can start an endless stream of discontent and tweaks that in the end never work right, or you can solve the problem and stop playing with people who have no interest in playing fair with you. Move to the other side of the sector or something, find some new people to play with on the other side of Sirius.
(01-29-2020, 04:05 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds to me like you're playing with people who are not outright cheating, but their intent is to win, rather than have fun. There's an easy way to deal with people like that, you don't interact with them.
Then you wouldn't be interacting with any of the official factions, because they all do it.
And if people stopped doing it, the'd give the people who do it in a hidden way an even bigger advantage than they have when everyone does it.
(01-29-2020, 04:05 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]I think we can all agree that what you're describing isn't In the spirit of the game, and isn't fun. It's also completely impossible to enforce any sort of rules around, though I suspect you could enforce something around docking to change chars to engage - if we can enforce it after an interaction has started, there's no reason we couldn't use the same methods for this, it'd just be as simple as stating "the interaction starts when the ship is seen on scanners and can be identified".
But here's the deal, no amount of enforcement is going to help this, because these people are already skirting the rules on technicalities, using outside methods of communication, etc. I doubt that the GMs could bring this sort of behavior under control. But you've got a VERY good way to do it. Just don't play with them. If they don't want to play fair, don't play with them. It seems like you know who the people that do this are, so if you see them, just go somewhere else and don't play with them. Find some people to play with who do want to have fair engagements and have fun.
This isn't a balance issue, it's a people issue. Even if you buff the bomber guns some, it won't matter, because the people that are taking advantage of you now will just change their tactics to get their edge some other way. You can start an endless stream of discontent and tweaks that in the end never work right, or you can solve the problem and stop playing with people who have no interest in playing fair with you. Move to the other side of the sector or something, find some new people to play with on the other side of Sirius.
As i said, this is the standard behavior of almost all "vets" here, there is no fix to the behavior itself, and telling people to not interact with 80% of the population isn't a fix, it kills the game instead. Making judgmental posts also isn't going to fix anything.
What we CAN do, is mitigate the negative impacts and potential for abuse of the behavior, by making balancing less rock-paper-scissor like.
I don't think that making VHFs and bombers more similar to each other by boosting the anti-snub abilities of a bomber and the anti cap abilities of a VHF solves anything.
I'm going to be real blunt here. If 80% of the server is only interested In metagaming to "win", why bother? They'll just figure out the next thing that gives them a leg up. Won't matter what it is, they will find a way to abuse it. You've got to change the culture.
The other option is to simply not engage in fights you know you can't win. That means sometimes if you are causing trouble in a bomber and a VHF comes to intercept you, you high tail it out of there. A VHF would do the same if a GB or Destroyer showed up. It's a pecking order, and there are advantages for each ship type. I understand that you want to fly a bomber, but what you're missing is that bombers are not appropriate for all situations. You wouldn't drive a Ferrari when you were going offroading with a family of 6, that's not what they're designed for. When you use a bomber outside of its intended role, yes, it will be a sitting duck, just like if you use anything outside of its intended function.
This is like complaining that 5k transports need more guns and armor because they can't effectively fight off bombers and VHFs. Of course they can't, they're not designed to, nor should they be able to.
(01-29-2020, 06:59 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]The other option is to simply not engage in fights you know you can't win. That means sometimes if you are causing trouble in a bomber and a VHF comes to intercept you, you high tail it out of there. A VHF would do the same if a GB or Destroyer showed up.
Except, if a gunship or a destroyer shows up, you can actually escape because of your speed advantage. But in a bomber against a VHF? Prepare to get shot at, unless you flee way earlier. Which in an ongoing engagement is very unlikely to happen.
(01-29-2020, 11:47 AM)Lucas Wrote: [ -> ]People that used to fly bombers to fight fighters may say what you are saying, people that have been using bombers against caps like they are supposed to aren't complaining. They are still playing the game and the class to fulfill the role that they are supposed to fulfill; killing caps.
And just as you claim that the "Anti-SNAC" side has no valid arguments, I feel like the Pro-SNAC side has no valid arguments either. This is a purely subjective thing and boils down to "Should bombers be able to fight back against fighters?" and people have vastly different opinions on that.
Where did it say bombers are only for taking on caps? They seem to have uses on other ships too. And yeah why would anyone complain about not having fast firing guns or the snac against caps when those things don't effect caps and the snac nerf doesnt effect caps. Rock/paper/scissors balance sucks. Its obvious you just want bombers to accept being easy targets. Doesn't it feel better to shoot someone down because of skill, not because they were more laden down than you and had no weapons to fight back? When they're flying a ship that's almost exactly a fighter?
(01-29-2020, 02:26 PM)Wesker Wrote: [ -> ]I like how karlotta’s proposition fixes everything and makes bombers more useful v fighters than they already are (to a good extent too) but snac players are still insistent on bringing up bombers by re-amping the snac :joy:
It’s beyond blatant you just want a free insta-kill tool, you dont care about revamping bombers you just want that toy back. Lol
Yeah, the pro snac side has a pretty simple argument:
A blast of anti-matter will rip through any snub, but it isn't that easy to manually aim! And if you miss, that might have been your only real chance, especially if trying to survive a fighter. So yeah, it was a good insta-kill tool if you could use it right.
As to revamping bombers, the only other thing to do is change their guns/turrets situation or the turn rates. The same goes for bomber vs bomber snac'ing, it may suck and things happen fast but one mistake and it turns around, its not %100 guaranteed like everyone likes to assume. If I was bomber 1v1'ing and we both had snacs and the other guy won, I'd never complain. That's life. Maybe this is about the personalities involved, and many here reveal themselves to favor the cheap path. We should encourage players to endure and grow, not nerf to hand them easy victories.
The nerf was to protect less skilled players who will just leave after losing quickly (so its been said), which is weak and lame. If you don't have the drive and will to be here anyways, I'm not sad, some people can jump in too quickly and then blame the game. Or maybe one complaint to a dev friend results in a free nerf?
In the end the only practical balance is to actually balance things, by making all sides equal, otherwise its still just the rock/paper/scissors cheap tactic of forcing people to take useless path out of hope, only to become someone else's cannon fodder.
I would laugh if we all had fly one fighter/bomber class with the same loadout, allowing snacs. Would there be tears?
(01-29-2020, 06:59 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that making VHFs and bombers more similar to each other by boosting the anti-snub abilities of a bomber and the anti cap abilities of a VHF solves anything.
It would reduce the problem that many bomber pilots here say is the reason for why they want snacs back.
And it reduces the effectiveness of the otherwise unsolvable metagaming problem that arises from rock-scissor-paper balancing.
(01-29-2020, 06:59 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to be real blunt here. If 80% of the server is only interested In metagaming to "win", why bother? They'll just figure out the next thing that gives them a leg up. Won't matter what it is, they will find a way to abuse it. You've got to change the culture.
And how do you intend to change the culture?
(01-29-2020, 06:59 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]The other option is to simply not engage in fights you know you can't win. That means sometimes if you are causing trouble in a bomber and a VHF comes to intercept you, you high tail it out of there. A VHF would do the same if a GB or Destroyer showed up.
1: It not always possible. VHFs have CDs you know.
2: Only fight if you're bound to win, run as soon as you see you wont. How is that fun? How does that improve the "culture"?
(01-29-2020, 06:59 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]It's a pecking order, and there are advantages for each ship type. I understand that you want to fly a bomber, but what you're missing is that bombers are not appropriate for all situations.
You're missing that I fly VHFs much more than bombers, and intend to continue doing so regardless.
What you seem to also be missing is that I dont want bombers to be the best class to fight snubs, nor on equal footing when fighting snubs. I just dont want to have it so that you might as well sundive as soon as a VHF shows up, because you know that even trying to continue fighting will be useless.
I'm a bit tired of repeating it tbh.
Okay then, since some brilliant minds said that we're not giving other ideas to balance bombers, here I come.
1. Increase bomber EMP cannons velocities and refire rate, same with the energies. Make them an 4.0-ish.
2. Hellfire rockets using more energy, each cannon (2 of them max) firing x10 missiles and then refiring for 10 sec.
3. Scatters being deleted. Or completely reworked.
4. SNAC doing more dammage on snub targets but still can't instakill.
5. Rear bomber turrets firing frontally too.
6. New guns and new codes.
So now you got a good weapon that you'll be able to actually undock and fly a bit more secure. No instakills. VHF's will still get a chance against bombers because of the extra agility. (Lets not forget we're talking about fighter classes nontheless since bombers are just double the size of a vhf)
Oh I just reminded that bombers are a class that should get deleted by any class according to the people here.
nvm this thread is nonsense.
You started out nicely with point 1, but then it devolved into the same tantrum as all the other blue message junkies again. Try again after you've pulled yourself together.
Quote:1. Increase bomber EMP cannons velocities and refire rate, same with the energies. Make them an 4.0-ish.
Nice. At least it would make them somewhat useful, I think?
Quote:2. Hellfire rockets using more energy, each cannon (2 of them max) firing x10 missiles and then refiring for 10 sec.
Hellfires are good as of now, honestly. No need to fix what ain't broken, although few people seem to use them nowadays.
Quote:3. Scatters being deleted. Or completely reworked.
Against deleting them, but a rework might be useful to make them somewhat useable.
Quote:4. SNAC doing more dammage on snub targets but still can't instakill.
The point of controversy - the SNAC. I think it's a possibility, so that fighters still have a chance to fight bombers, and bombers still have a chance to try SNACing people.
Yet, it's just my 2 cents.
Quote:5. Rear bomber turrets firing frontally too.
Yes please. I'd also add to take those 6-gun bombers and lock 2 frontal slots to be able to mount only Scorchers/Neutralizers/Hellfires.
Quote:6. New guns and new codes.
Definetly, bombers need more codename variety, aside of the usual AHRIMAN and HELLION (which are scrapped and repurposed Phantom guns, amirite?)