I had meant to write this post yesterday and never got around to it, but as promised, let's dive in. I don't dislike or disagree with any of the suggestions presented on principle, but a few of them are addressing problems with are more a matter of perception than fact, and others create unforeseen issues in areas unrelated to what the OP is trying to address.
(01-16-2020, 06:24 PM)Karlotta Wrote: [ -> ]1. Increase bomber EMP+Energy gun velocity to 550 or even 600. This should make them able to hit fighters more. It also has the positive side effect of making aiming and hitting larger ships easier at a distance especially for new players, thereby making it more attractive to fly (and thereby learn to properly fly) snubs. You could even make snac velocity slightly higher, for the same reason.
I like this idea a lot in theory, but it's addressing one issue that is (a lack of bomber versatility in terms of offensive work against capitals and defensive work against fighters), and an issue that isn't (bomber efficacy versus capitals). Anti capital performance of bombers is currently not something that can really be seen as a problem, and buffing the speed on these guns is going to make bombers generally more effective versus gunboats and cruisers. To what degree is hard to say without thorough, extensive testing, and my initial proposal would probably be to buff their velocity to 600 and reduce their range to 700, thereby making them more effective as a defensive tool against snubcraft and hopefully maintaining their usefulness as an offensive tool against capital ships without buffing them hugely. These numbers are more likely than not imperfect, but they aren't alterations to a degree that should prove gamebreaking, so these are probably worth a try.
As to increasing SNAC velocity, that probably is not going to happen. The SNAC could definitely stand for a buff in performance against cruisers, but any buff you give it is also going to make it more effective against gunboats and battleships, which it's performing pretty well against at present.
(01-16-2020, 06:24 PM)Karlotta Wrote: [ -> ]2. Increase fighter gun ranges to 800 (same as bomber emp+energy guns), so they become more useful against slow larger ships like caps and transports to also make fighters more versatile and attractive, and thereby keep them competitive towards bombers.
As addressed previously, this isn't really seen as an issue. Fighter performance against capital ships is actually pretty satisfactory. The ideal meta here is that it takes more time but is achievable for fighters to kill a cap, which it is in most cases, the exception generally being cruisers. If I were going to change one thing about the way fighters and caps interact right now it would be to increase fighter shield resistance to capital ship weapons, thereby making caps diving into group brawls less of a death sentence to fighters without support. I'd be more in favor of this (fighter gun range buff) change if it wasn't such a death sentence to battleships, which fighters will be able to outrange and whittle down even more effortlessly than they can at present.
(01-16-2020, 06:24 PM)Karlotta Wrote: [ -> ]3. Give fighters a torpedo that isn't as good as the bomber nova torp, but decent, (preferably in an aux slot or second CD slot because having to choose between CD and torpedo is again rock-scissor-paper balancing) for the same reason.
There's a vocal minority of aces who really, really want the old Starkiller and Sunslayer torpedoes reintroduced in a fashion that made them very, very effective when used in swarms chasing down groups of fighters. I'm going to make it clear right now that if we do this, it won't be that. I don't think that's what Karlotta is proposing here anyway. I actually did draft stats for such a weapon when aux slots were first introduced, designed to act as a nova-lite of sorts with approximately 20-30 torpedoes. The idea never gained traction within the balance team because of the belief that it would invalidate the use of bombers against capital ships, because despite it still being less effective it would give fighters far more flexibility than they have at present. As someone who mains fighters, I really, really like this idea. But I do have serious questions as to whether or not it would be the best thing we could do for healthy gameplay.
(01-16-2020, 06:24 PM)Karlotta Wrote: [ -> ](not sure about last idea but: Since balance magic exists, also make minirazor do more damage to caps than snubs?)
My previous paragraph that I wrote about fighter torpedoes also applies here. Personally, I would love this, but I don't know if it's the best thing we could do for the game. We also need to keep in mind that any weapons affected by balance magic are going to increase server load, and even with a low refire weapon like the minirazor, we should only be making use of the plugin when absolutely necessary.