Cruiser Battle Razors

[Ursus]

It's eye-opening that so many people were sniping with these things. I am such a terrible shot that I never even considered it

---

Discovery 24/7 Negotiating Tactics:

[Lunaphase]

I tried to snipe with them but even in .85 they werent worth the energy cost. Now i have to sacrifice my LM or a cerb to fire one? screw that.

Light cruisers like the AI cruiser now have 2 slots they can mount heavys on. Sometimes 3 depending on cruiser. As mentioned if you need 2 heavy cannons to kill somthing and the total energy use is HIGHER than just nuking it with a LM, then the entire point of that weapon is an utter failure.

---

[Aeqvinox]

AI cruiser is medium, and it has 2+9 which is kinda weird if you ask me, it desperately calls for a third heavy slot.

And yeah battle razors *sigh*. I miss them so much that i crippled my Bullhead by mounting two of them. I just couldn't stand the $^%&#*@ nova spam anymore...

[mjolnir]

BattleRazors were used to instakill snubs that are sitting on your tail. That was their only use, and that was the only thing why cruisers (those, who knew what they were doing) were mounting them. If your intention was to remove that capability, then you de-facto removed the purpose of battle razors. I don't want to judge if it's wise or not to remove that aspect of the game, you probably see the bigger picture then me, but this is how it is, currently.

There's no use for battle razors rather then instakilling snub targets. For everything else, basics/solaris/cerberus/mortars/missiles are simply better, especially with turretsteering (including vs. gunboats). Better in terms of actual effeciency and the price you pay for mounting those on heavy slots (i.e., acquired capabilities vs lost capabilities)

The problem was that cruisers would mount razors for instakilling snubs... while mounting enough weapons (LM/pulses/primaries) for fighting the other targets (GBs and BS) at the same time, so they only lost their anti-cruiser capability (where more primaries were better). This was especially problematic with those light cruisers as mentioned.

People will not mount just 1 battle razor to "deal damage" to a bomber and "make him run". As Aeqvinox pointed out, now LM is being used for that purpose, although at less effeciency.

Ideally 2 razors + LM(s) or missile(s) or cerb(s) should make reasonably good (but not too good) allround loadout on cruisers with many heavy hardpoints.



==================================================================

It's a bit offtopic here, but while we're at it
So Valor's problems with Glaive (mentioned in the appropriate thread), as well as requirement to mount 3 flaks instead of 2 like on turtle/KuBS for 360 coverage (I can't say for Zoner Juggie and Liberty Carrier) and resulting weakest AA capabilities, compared to those, is not a result of counter-balancing it's anti-cap capabilities, but merely a result of it's model/hardpoint location? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Didn't actually read about that afaik....anyway

It's more the other way around. Because of how many hardpoints it had and where they were positioned, the anti-cap capabilities were boosted.

---

Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.

[Ursus]

Any thoughts on changing the accuracy as a way of reducing the sniping ability?

---

Discovery 24/7 Negotiating Tactics:

[Sava]

8-11 faction cruiser turrets can replace 2-3 cerbs (nearly the same damage output, same range, efficiency and better speed), so you can use heavy slots for something else.

[jakub963]

Yeah... Thing is that half of the cruisers currently in disco dont have that many turrets...

---

[JayDee Kasane]

8-11 faction cruiser turrets can replace 2-3 cerbs (nearly the same damage output, same range, efficiency and better speed), so you can use heavy slots for something else.

If you dont want to use Solaris, then yes. Sometimes 1-2 Cerbs is not bad at all

---

[Gamerofthegame]

I have to admit, I have not been able to touch Capital ships at all yet. It's a far away goal for me, right now.

But, I have inferred things.

Couldn't things also be fixed by reducing the range of the Snubs' anti-cap weaponry? Instead of out ranging (Which strikes me as really silly) the cruiser, have it so the bomber has to close in through the cruisers anti-snub range, get in close, lay down on it and then shimmy away, dodging the cruisers' withering, yet not immediately deadly, fire?

Now, of course, go ahead and fix your weapons, as this thread is about, but wouldn't that solve the issue too while still making things "fair" and viable on all sides? Would even mean that fighter cover is still a thing, as it's unlikely the cruiser will get away unscathed from a bomber.

[Govedo13]

@ Govedo, must say that I'm getting a bit tired of how you address the dev team as some invisible entity that anything and everything can be blamed on.

Well I spoke about that 1 year ago only when the turret split was just a idea. Nobody listened. Nobody do anything about it, devs does not care.

I have a question here.
Battleship Battle Razors are sniper-precision anti GB and anti-Snub Guns, they also are used in pairs in order to have surprising attack instant killing snubs and hurting bad/instant killing GBs. The Battle Razor could also work against Crusiers but it is not that good because of the energy Consummation/DPS Output/Small Range.
Putting them on the heavy guns class for me means that they wont be used much or at all. As far as I understood most ships will have 3-4 heavy hard-points(better to put Motar/Missile and Cerberus then two Battle-razors) because of the many light points for anti snub defence . The BattleRazor would be in some weird position in this class system, it is not primary weapon, it is not light weapon, it is heavy weapon used for small targets because of its fast speed.
I think that the BattleRazor could loose some of its damage and as well not to eat so many energy and be used somehow otherwise, any suggestions?

@mjolnir
You are getting tired because you are wrong or because you need 1 year to adjust simple thing?
Or may be because I managed to predict that Razors would sux in the system proposed by you 1 year before 4.86 showing you exactly why and what should be changed?
May be because talking to you people is almost the same like talking to the wall?
In general I know what is the idea of this kind of balance- I had in 4.85 LABC with 5 razors- it was brutal. But not listening to any kind of feedback allow weird and stupid things to happen in game.



I see I am just lolwut in your eyes good SiЯ. Same story nothing new here.
Or you might want to change your policy of NOT U replies and take some constructive criticism and try to involve more people in the balancing team because different points of view help a lot- together with making easy accessible feedback system-the 4.86 feed back topics are all the way to go. We do need them a lot.
No hard feelings from my side but calling the obvious black white is no go in my book.

Now for the Cruiser Razors again- there are only 2 logical ways:
1: Enable mounting them on primary cruiser slot and keep their stats- I like that one- same with the battleship primary slots and razors- you must be crazy to put razors on battleship now- same as cruiser.
Or double the damage increase the speed a bit 100-200 m/s make them really energy hungry with slow refire.

---

€œ

Official faction players that are often accused of elitism, never deploy them and have those weird, immersion killing "fair fight/dueling" suicidal hobbies. (yes, i've seen enough of those lolduels, where house military with overwhelming force on the field willingly loses a pilot in a duel. ffs.)