+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Who is in charge of balancing caps? (/showthread.php?tid=115543)
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - Backo - 05-19-2014
Oh well, at least snubs don't have "zoom out to auto aim", right?
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - SnakThree - 05-19-2014
(05-19-2014, 07:30 AM)Bloodl1ke Wrote: Oh well, at least snubs don't have "zoom out to auto aim", right?
Man, it's so fun when you fight GBs going full circle while zoomed out and spitting basics/solaris at your poor fighter.
It's totally not imbalanced and is very skill based.
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - EisenSeele - 05-19-2014
(05-19-2014, 05:33 AM)Snak3 Wrote: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=114555
Majority of people voted that increasing snub speed is better idea then leaving it as it is. Balance team decided on exact values.
Capital ships were never survive all, beat all, escape all vessels. They have their weakneses of needing antisnub support. Now, snubcrafts are able to intercept slower ships and wait stall for reinforcements. Capital ship can call for reinforcements too. Good lord, this leads to possible interaction between capital ship and others. Is that so damn horrible?
EDIT: You will see that fighter codes became worse.
Because the 57 people in total who voted are totally representative of the entire community.
Snubcraft were already able to intercept slower ships and wait stall for reinforcements - while being able to escape slower ships with near zero chance of failure. The only relative recourse for escape was to cruise with enough distance to escape - and now even that's gone.
It's especially silly, because snubs can dish out much more damage than it could possibly receive.
If snubs can always engage on its own terms, and have the ability to always force a confrontation with caps, then caps should have a counter.
(05-19-2014, 07:26 AM)Trogdor Wrote: Oh look, it's this thread again.
Dude, I and others have tried.
There is a pervasive school of thought that capital ships, and in particular, heavy battleships, are intended to be pinatas for everyone else to smack around. To these people, they are intended to fight other heavy battleships and bases, and that's it.
You will get the same old tired retorts from the community over and over. "Fly with escorts". "Battleships are 'area denial'". "We don't want to make caps OP". All of which have logical holes.
Suggestions that would make caps more offensively useful without being overpowered have been posted, debated by the community, and ignored by the dev team.
P.S. AFAIK the person who's officially the head of cap combat is Blodo.
Does Blodo even play anymore?
(05-19-2014, 07:30 AM)Bloodl1ke Wrote: Oh well, at least snubs don't have "zoom out to auto aim", right?
Hah, I get it! It's funny because people who think zoom = auto aim generally have no clue what they're talking about!
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - Zayne Carrick - 05-19-2014
Quote:Does Blodo even play anymore?No, but you can still blame him.
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - EisenSeele - 05-19-2014
(05-19-2014, 08:34 AM)Zayne Carrick Wrote:Quote:Does Blodo even play anymore?No, but you can still blame him.
That's what Zelot is for. But let's stay on topic, shall we?
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - Nerva - 05-19-2014
What are these big huge snub weapon buffs you are talking about?
VHF weapons have a measle 200-400 DPS on top of the old values. That's about 10-15% ...
Excals used to do 2800 DPS in 4.86 and they now do 3000 DPS. A whopping 7%. Big deal, apparently.
Also, complaining about LF codenames? Really? Did you actually bother to look at their stats? And didn't you notice that extreme power consumption? Better do it and then calculate how "much" damage a LF can do over time. (Hint: ~3200 DPS constant damage)
LFs got a large nerf on their armor, too.
By the way, when was the last time you saw a bunch of LF killing a cap ship?
And bombers got exactly nothing in the damage department. The new EMP SNAC does no actual damage and requires ditching something else of your equipment - SNAC or Nova. So it's a fair trade-off.
About the speed buff. As others have said - bring support. Why people expect to fly their big caps alone and be able to kill everything?
Besides, the sheer amount of caps on the server shows that they aren't as useless as you are trying to make them seem.
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - SnakThree - 05-19-2014
(05-19-2014, 03:22 AM)EisenSeele Wrote: Also, in space, bigger engine = faster practical top speed - smaller ships might be able to accelerate faster, but should have over all lower speeds than ships with engines that are orders of magnitude larger.Bigger Mass = Needs bigger engine to create inertia.
EDIT: We should make caps accelerate like Barge but give 450 cruise speed.
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - EisenSeele - 05-19-2014
(05-19-2014, 09:38 AM)Corundum Wrote: What are these big huge snub weapon buffs you are talking about?
VHF weapons have a measle 200-400 DPS on top of the old values. That's about 10-15% ...
Excals used to do 2800 DPS in 4.86 and they now do 3000 DPS. A whopping 7%. Big deal, apparently.
Per gun. Now add all of that up per ship, then add that most snub vs cap combat has multiple snubs on a single cap. It all adds up, and that was a buff for snubs that was not compensated for on the cap side.
(05-19-2014, 09:38 AM)Corundum Wrote: Also, complaining about LF codenames? Really? Did you actually bother to look at their stats? And didn't you notice that extreme power consumption? Better do it and then calculate how "much" damage a LF can do over time. (Hint: ~3200 DPS constant damage)
LFs got a large nerf on their armor, too.
By the way, when was the last time you saw a bunch of LF killing a cap ship?
Actually pretty recently.
LF's got their burst damage buffed quite a bit - and burst damage is what they're good for, since their specialty is shooting without getting hit.
Consequently, their armor nerf means absolutely NOTHING, given that they're impossible to hit anyway.
(05-19-2014, 09:38 AM)Corundum Wrote: And bombers got exactly nothing in the damage department. The new EMP SNAC does no actual damage and requires ditching something else of your equipment - SNAC or Nova. So it's a fair trade-off.
There are quite a few 2torp +CD bombers out there - and Incaps are actually rather decent for deshielding cruisers and larger caps at a significantly less energy cost than a snac, and without spending nova torps. That was a buff that was also not compensated for.
(05-19-2014, 09:38 AM)Corundum Wrote: About the speed buff. As others have said - bring support. Why people expect to fly their big caps alone and be able to kill everything?
Besides, the sheer amount of caps on the server shows that they aren't as useless as you are trying to make them seem.
Caps like gunboats are supposed to be a counter to fighters - but when they actually had that capability, it was removed rather promptly. Now, they're not even good against other gunboats, only for kiting cruisers that don't know better, or for killing transports.
The whole "bring support" thing really doesn't mean much at all - why, in this rapidly depopulating server environment, would it make sense to further discourage the use of ship classes that many people actually need to play in order to have fun (as one of the few viable alternatives to snub combat that not everyone is suited to)?
A lone fighter should not be able to keep a battleship tied up with 100% chance of success. Having the same cruise speeds for both at least gave the larger ship a chance to avoid fighting on un-favorable terms, but not anymore.
If the fighter class has a 100% chance of forcing fights on their terms, then balance would dictate that they shouldn't be invulnerable to caps - but that's the case. Any snub pilot that isn't brain dead can dish out damage with a non-existent chance of being killed, while the reverse is not true at all.
I'd like to see your "sheer amount of caps" flying about. Shooting them was a staple of activity, but it doesn't seem like it very much anymore. Sure, you can point at specific instances where there's more than one cap online doing something, but in the general trend, this mod has been increasingly alienating cap players - and to say otherwise means you're either in denial or you're blind to what's happening. It really is as simple as that.
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - EisenSeele - 05-19-2014
(05-19-2014, 09:57 AM)Snak3 Wrote:(05-19-2014, 03:22 AM)EisenSeele Wrote: Also, in space, bigger engine = faster practical top speed - smaller ships might be able to accelerate faster, but should have over all lower speeds than ships with engines that are orders of magnitude larger.Bigger Mass = Needs bigger engine to create inertia.
EDIT: We should make caps accelerate like Barge but give 450 cruise speed.
Lol. Okay, if you want to play it that way, snubs should pick between cruise engines and life support.
RE: Who is in charge of balancing caps? - Zayne Carrick - 05-19-2014
Quote:A lone fighter should not be able to keep a battleship tied up with 100% chance of success. Having the same cruise speeds for both at least gave the larger ship a chance to avoid fighting on un-favorable terms, but not anymore.Yet fighter is unable. Engage cruise engines 71 times and you're free.
As for snubs engaging on their own terms.
The maths are simple. While I'm not sure about gunboats, you always need 2+ bombers to kill a cruiser and 3+ bombers to kill BS. And those bombers should be good ones-know which weapon to use, how to dodge incoming fire, etc. Capital's pilot skill doesn't matter. So with "this rapidly depopulating server environment" you still need 2 or even 3 times more people to log than your enemy to deal with him with snubs. Usually, it's impossible. The bigger the ship, the more it gains from low playercount.