(01-15-2019, 03:24 AM)Tenacity Wrote: The problem is that fighters are now limited to a single missile launcher, at the exclusion of their cruise disruptor, and not a single fighter missile launcher in the game is worth using on its own. If they're going to remain this way, the missiles need to be buffed to the point where they're actually worth giving up a CD.
As it is, the Cruise Disruptor is too powerful. It doesnt just take you out of cruise; it stops engine kill (pretty much wrecking anyone's ability to maneuver, especially caps), it stops cloaking, it stops jump drives, it detonates mines (which can be used both defensively and offensively in a snub fight), and it destroys most heavy ordnance including nova torpedoes and most capship missiles.
The reason you dont see people using missiles is because giving up a CD is too big of a hindrance that the missile doesnt make up for, especially when missiles are countered by not only simple dodging but also countermeasures and CRUISE DISRUPTORS.
CDs need to be nerfed, they fill too many important roles in a fight. Missiles need to be buffed, they arent strong enough to warrant the loss of a CD.
Weapons like the mini razor and inferno cannon are largely useless on most fighters because they can no longer one-shot another snub (the hades in particular is stupid unless you're trying to snub swarm a cap). The only time you see mini razors in use are on SHFs that cant equip bomber weapons.
I would agree that in particular the Train Cruise Disruptor is in need of a nerf. The Mosquito is ostensibly more specialized for handling ordnance detonation (and not so great at actually disrupting other ships) but when the TCD does a good enough job with blowing somebody's missiles up and also lets you interdict any size ship with relative ease, there's no point in not using it if you're gonna have a CD at all.
I'm not inclined to think that because you find missiles to be unworthy of the trade-off that they necessarily are so. Missiles take a significant portion of a target's hull with them in exchange for not really having to aim them. Exhausting the massive supplies of countermeasures that the current line of droppers offers? That's another story. Both CDs and CMs are far too easily spammed, whereas other kinds of ordinance are too limited in capacity to compete with someone else's countermeasure supply, or too expensive to be carrying a full load of lest you lose and feed someone a few million credits in different kinds of high-end ammunition.
In a situation where you only have 20 or 30 cruise disruptors, you can't just spam them every time somebody fires a missile or drops a mine. As for CMs, I think they should number fewer for a full load as well. Basically the only utility there is in having a mine dropper is disrupting a trade lane behind you when you're getting chased down by the local boogeyman, since whenever anyone who's played this game for more than half an afternoon figures out you're trying to mine them you end up getting hit with a steaming fistful of your own explosives. Launching a cruise disruptor ought to feel like a decision not made lightly, rather than a mindless push-button routine. Same with dropping CMs.
Maybe it would be good to give CDs a bit of a failure rate too. Old-school real-life fighter missiles were commonly fired in pairs because they so commonly whiffed. The TCD basically never misses as long as your target is in range. Bad CM dropper placement on a lot of transports makes CMs more or less useless for countering them anyway.
Missiles are still useful for people like me, who fly fighters but aren't always so hot at aiming for other fast-moving targets, so getting a little extra boost is nice. I don't run them on pirate ships (because I need the cruise disruptor for that), but I usually mount one on a ship where I intend to be reacting than instigating. That being said, it might be cool if it were possible (and I have no honest-to-goodness idea whether it is or not) to remove the engine kill-cancelling effect of CDs and transplant it instead to missiles. This way a heavy hit from a missile causes a sort of "system shock" explained by the damage dealt.
I'm sure that would have some nasty unforeseen consequences (most well-intended ideas do), but I'm spitballing.
I think boosting the mini razor up to levels where you could one-shot the average de-shielded fighter or bomber would be a grave mistake -- like I said before, going down to a single blow from full hull is alienating and aggravating in a snub fight, especially to new players, of whom there seem to be rather few of these days. I think it's reasonable to hand a kill like that to someone piloting a capship where the guns are too powerful not to do that.
Perhaps a solution here would be to eliminate the shieldbuster fighter energy torps (tartarus, inferno, etc.) and merge that with the Mini Razor -- give it the same hull damage as shield damage (about 17k), to make it a more useful weapon (provided there isn't some engine limitation forbidding this). Raise the projectile speed a bit to 500m/s or 550m/s. (Still just spitballing.) Slightly better for harassing freighters and transports, and much better for getting another snub pilot to brown their pants without taking them out of the fight too quickly without the projectile being so fast that it syncs with common fighter guns.
You have a good point pertaining to the SHF class, which is really more like two classes, Very Very Heavy Fighter and Bomber That Can Mount Fighter Guns. For the sake of consistency (and perhaps also balance) it would be better to make all of them of the Bomber That Can Mount Fighter Guns variety, to give them a broad appeal as utilitarian multi-role ships. They're all too big and heavy to properly evolve into a space superiority fighter, but it would be handy for players who like to fly solo and need to contend with potentially many different kinds of encounters.
The only problem with this would be that then the Rogues and Mollys would have three ships in their line that could use a SNAC -- Hyena, Barghest, and Werewolf. Of course, this could be remedied by shrinking the Werewolf down and calling it a heavy fighter instead (although I bet about half the devs would read this idea and snort coffee out their nose from laughter).
To give Heavy Fighters an extra edge (and make their role more distinct from VHFs), perhaps they could boast fewer guns (4-5) in exchange for getting both a CD/Torp and a CD slot, in more the tradition of the Jackdaw and the Gladiator. This gives them the ability to play gunner and interceptor, but without the interceptor speed and agility of a light fighter, and without the boosted powercore of a VHF. Boost HF cruise speed from 375 to 380, reduce VHF cruise speed from 375 to 370, to keep the classes more distinct in that regard.
I rather like the roles the ships currently seem to be aiming to fill, but there are ways they could be molded to better fit within those parameters.
I had offered a solution to the fighter type issue before, and it fell on deaf ears:
Light fighters -> Renamed to Interceptors:
Very fast (400+ cruise speed, possibly more than they have now)
No lethal weaponry (remove all hullbusters)
Variety of effective anti-shield and anti-powercore weapons
Primarily, they should have a weapon type that not only reduces shields/powercore, but also can slow down the enemy (if possible, drain thruster 'fuel')
No Mine Droppers
Can carry cruise disruptors
Heavy fighters -> Renamed to Superiority Fighters:
Uses no energy weapons / Is entirely reliant on ammunition-based weapons
That means Ballistic guns that use up ammo (like current chainguns), as well as missiles
Carries more than one missile hardpoint (possibly 2-4), allowing the use of several guided munitions at a time
Cannot carry a cruise disruptor
Has no Anti-Shield weapons (other than EMP missiles)
Single Mine Dropper
Slightly slower than light fighters in cruise speed (say 380 cruise, or 375, instead of the normal 350)
Very Heavy Fighters -> *insert name here* (forgot what I was calling these, its late and I'm tired)
Uses no missiles or ammo-based weapons (no ballistics)
Uses entirely energy-based weapons
Has a mixture of shield and hull busters
More hull strength/toughness than the other fighters
Variety of gun types, from 'burst' weapons like plasma guns to sustained damage lasers and pulse weapons
Cannot equip cruise disruptors or missiles
Single Mine Dropper
standard cruise speed (350)
Bombers:
No longer have bomber 'guns' (no energy, scatter, chaingun, etc. weapons)
Can equip dual mine droppers
Can equip a cruise disruptor
Has 3-5 (based on size) Bomber/Fighter Torpedo hardpoints (this means it can use either bomber weapons like novas, snac, neutralizers, scorchers, etc. OR mini razor / inferno cannon / etc)
Standard Cruise Speed (350)
Super Heavy Fighters / Combat Freighters -> Gunships:
Slowest of the fighter types
Heaviest armor/shielding
Has an assorted weapon loadout, with 1 or 2 mounts that can use weapons from each of the other fighter types, including bomber weapons
Can equip a cruise disruptor and 1 Bomber Torpedo
Lower than normal cruise speed (300 or 325 instead of 350)
So what you end up with is:
Light fighters (Interceptors) are a necessity for pirates, group pvp, and police factions, as they can literally shut down another ship and hinder it for allies, but on their own are incapable of killing anything. Their higher cruise speed and having a cruise disruptor slot gives them the utility to run down and hinder fleeing targets, or stick around larger fights to act as ordnance interceptors (destroying missiles/torpedoes and hindering enemies)
Heavy Fighters (Superiority Fighters) are very powerful and easy to use, but have a low skill ceiling (meaning a vet wont really be any better in one than a newer player) because they rely mostly on missiles and ammo-based guns. They would have very high damage potential going into a fight, but would 'burn out' their ammo reserves quite quickly. This would relegate them to short-duration fights, and they would lose endurance fights. These would be less effective in large group fights because their ammo storage wouldnt allow them to keep up with other ships, they'd end up useless several minutes into battle.
Very Heavy Fighters (Yet Unnamed) would have lower burst/dps potential than heavy fighters, but would have staying power because they dont rely on ammunition. They would easily outlast heavy fighters as long as they're able to stay alive until the heavies are out of missiles/ammo, and would be better for long-duration group fights. They would no longer have the same utility, however, as they lose the cruise disruptor and missile options.
Bombers would become pure anti-cap vessels, with no notable anti-fighter defense (barring being able to hit fighters with their heavy weapons). The availability of 3-5 torpedo hardpoints would allow them to run nova torpedoes, a supernova cannon, shield busters like neutralizers or incapacitator torpedoes, and anti-gunboat/fighter weapons like mini razors/inferno cannons (some kind of feature would have to be included to prevent the use of 5 mini razors, obviously, or they'd become an anti-fighter meta, but that can be done through hardpoint restrictions by only allowing 1-2 hardpoints to equip fighter-type torpedoes). On their own, bombers would be vulnerable to other fighters of all types, but would be much more effective in an anti-capital role.
Super heavy fighters (gunships) would be a jack of all trades, not excelling in any of the above fields but being able to dabble in a little of everything. They might have, for example, 2 energy guns, 2 missile launchers, 2 pulse guns, a cruise disruptor, and a nova torpedo or mini razor, but that versatility comes at the cost of not being focused on one role.