Discovery 4.87 Balance Discussion

[Sciamach]

An increase on the BS missile ammo cap would also be welcome.

Missiles in general need more ammo.

This issue can kinda be averted by having more than one kind of missile turret (see tripple missile LABC), but then you start to eat power-core loss :|

---

[ sci·am·ach ]
/sīˈamək/

A simple, angry man casually working his way through life on a personal quest to acquire copious amounts of street cred.

[Ayatolah]

Just to point something out here: The Hel is supposed to be a light cruiser, but its turn-rate is comparable to that of a LABC.... Errr..

Am I the only one seeing an issue here?


Maybe give it a better turn rate?

Also: I'm not a fan of how its only 2 heavy slots are both on the bottom of the ship... 2 Heavy turrets like that right next to eachother is kinda useless and provides no extra coverage a single turret in the middle couldnt.

and don't forget the size, is almost the same as Vidar, which is infinitely superior and share the SAME agility and size

---

[Syrus]

Both the Vidar and the Hel are oversized - even for a heavy cruiser the Vidar is big.

Just saying. Same goes for the Praefect is also oversized. Compare the Rheinland cruiser as the perfectly sized cruiser, you will quickly notice that many of the Disco cruiser models aren't fitting in their size, being too big and all. But heh...

Even the Kusari Destroyer is sized like a heavy cruiser now.

---

[Karst]

Deep Scanner: 12.5k Scan Range, 3k Cargo Range
Adv. Deep Scanner: 15k Scan Range, 2k Cargo Range
Cargo Scanner: 10k Scan Range, 4k Cargo Range
Adv. Cargo Scanner: 7.5k Scan Range, 7.5k Cargo Range
Battleship/Spyglass Scanner: 15k Scan Range, 6k Cargo Range

Generally good changes (especially for the BS scanner). However these numbers place too much importance on cargo scanning range.
Detecting range is an essential part of interactions but cargo range isn't. It's nice to know what someone is carrying, but finding out slightly earlier will not make a fundamental difference in any encounter.
Finally, just as it is now, the Adv. Cargo Scanner is worthless - detection range under 10k means another player can select you, find out exactly where you are and what equipment you have mounted before you even know there's someone there. There is no conceivable scenario in which this would be worth any amount of cargo scanning range, except maybe for conn-exclusive pewships. Especially since scanning cargo beyond 5k or so is almost never relevant anyway.

Suggestions:

Deep Scanner: 13k Scan Range, 3k Cargo Range
Adv. Deep Scanner: 15k Scan Range, 1.5k Cargo Range
Cargo Scanner: 11.5k Scan Range, 5k Cargo Range
Adv. Cargo Scanner: 10k Scan Range, 8k Cargo Range
Battleship/Spyglass Scanner: 15k Scan Range, 6k Cargo Range

---

[Curios]

Counter suggestion for scanners:

Adv. Cargo Scanner - 4k radar, 3k cargo
Adv. Deep Scanner - 5k radar, 2k cargo
Battleship/Spyglass Scanner - 250 millions of investment into 5k radar and 4k cargo

[OllO]

well i was doing some jumps here and there....and went low on fuel.

like 2000 units left for me .(3500 for a successful jump is needed)

i was wondering if the jump drive could use this 2000 unit to do a Jump. not as wide as the Full jump.

Yet able to jump .

Only for Blind jumps i want this. and Only with JD mk3

[EisenSeele]

Can we please fix the Bret Cruiser so it's not a combination of heavily armored, heavily armed, and stupidly difficult to hit?

Actually, most cruisers could use a rebalance - since they got completely hamstrung for the sake of transports, and not looked at since.

---

FEEDBACK

[Scotia]

Suggestion:

Increase the thrust speeds on the Light Fighters and Heavy's over the VHF/Bombers. They sacrifice a lot in terms of hull, firepower, core size, bot/bat capacity, and cargo space at the moment just for increased maneuverability alone (other than the increased cruise on the LF, which has no combat benefit).

I'd like to see numbers such as these:

Impulse/Thruster/Cruise
LF = 100/220/425
HF = 90/210/395
VHF = 82/202/375
Bomber = 80/200/360

Honestly, I could see thrust speeds as high as:

LF = 250
HF = 225
VHF = 205
Bomber = 200

[Haste]

Impulse/Thruster/Cruise
LF = 100/220/425
HF = 90/210/395
VHF = 82/202/375
Bomber = 80/200/360

Honestly, I could see thrust speeds as high as:

LF = 250
HF = 225
VHF = 205
Bomber = 200

One problem. Thrust speeds dictate which ships can engage and kill which other ships. For example, a gunboat on its own can't reasonably kill a lone fighter, because the fighter can simply thrust away. Sure, the gunboat can cruise up, but during the charge sequence the fighter can charge its very own cruise, and the engagement will be over.

The same would happen with heavy- and light fighters. They'd simply be able to run from everything except their own class of ships. It'd be absolutely trivial to shieldrun away from something you out-thrust. Let's be honest, it can be hard enough to catch up to a shieldrunning fighter (provided they know what they're doing and don't dodge like mad) that's just out of effective weapons range as it is, with the exact same thrust speed.

The current system for heavy fighter balance is fine, anyways. It's just not very consistent. There are ships like the Bayonet, which is an absolute beast in a duel if flown correctly, but there are ships like the Executioner - an Avenger-sized ship with a paper-thin hull and agility that doesn't quite match that of the Bayonet, which also happens to have a preferable profile.

---

[SnakeLancerHaven]

An increase on the BS missile ammo cap would also be welcome.

Missiles in general need more ammo.

This issue can kinda be averted by having more than one kind of missile turret (see tripple missile LABC), but then you start to eat power-core loss :|

I still don't get what realy changed in the missiles, the energy eating amount is the same but now it has Ammo's, wut? Why does it still eat same amount of energy as before when Missile Turrets weren't ammo based? It's just meh.

---

R.I.P Tabris...
Youtube - Twitch - My old Account