Is it time to nerf cruise disruptors?

[Greylock]

Hey do you guys remember when Corile killed Haste by effectively using Mosq CD's and the next day all CD's lost 20 points of ammo and it was suddenly near impossible to pin a intercepted target down because of all the bugs that CD's + CM's have alongside their new low ammo limits?

That was a good change wasn't it. For everyone who didn't want to fight or be caught that is. It's been brought up several times here already, but it bears repeating.

This is idea is bad, has been attempted before, and was reverted because it was terrible.

Thank you for summing things up for us. The idea to nerf CDs sucks. Leave them as they are.

---

[JorgeRyan]

what about we nerf CD ammo count and increase the engine disruption time?

---

Feedback and comm bumping here

[Reeves]

Hey do you guys remember when Corile killed Haste by effectively using Mosq CD's and the next day all CD's lost 20 points of ammo and it was suddenly near impossible to pin a intercepted target down because of all the bugs that CD's + CM's have alongside their new low ammo limits?

That was a good change wasn't it. For everyone who didn't want to fight or be caught that is. It's been brought up several times here already, but it bears repeating.

This is idea is bad, has been attempted before, and was reverted because it was terrible.

I'm going to keep quoting this because it's a perfect summary of the logic that's constantly applied as a justification for such a change. CDs do not need to be changed. If people keep suggesting silly changes then I'm just going to keep quoting Sean until the thread eventually gets locked.

---

[Greylock]

Hey do you guys remember when Corile killed Haste by effectively using Mosq CD's and the next day all CD's lost 20 points of ammo and it was suddenly near impossible to pin a intercepted target down because of all the bugs that CD's + CM's have alongside their new low ammo limits?

That was a good change wasn't it. For everyone who didn't want to fight or be caught that is. It's been brought up several times here already, but it bears repeating.

This is idea is bad, has been attempted before, and was reverted because it was terrible.

I'm going to keep quoting this because it's a perfect summary of the logic that's constantly applied as a justification for such a change. CDs do not need to be changed. If people keep suggesting silly changes then I'm just going to keep quoting Sean until the thread eventually gets locked.

I may just help you with that.

---

[Oggdo Bogdo]

Point A: this is probably built into the engine and isnt something that can be changed. However, perhaps reducing Cruise Disruptor ammo capacity could prevent this from being spammed to completely shut down someone's maneuvering in combat.

Your movement is countered by the mere press of a button, because the issue is with your movement. EK is not the only movement a ship has.

Point B: Detonating ordnance offensively has been done for ages via minetrapping or blowing up a bomber's novas as he launches them. I dont like it, but it doesnt have as many implications as the defensive applications for ordnance detonation.
Missiles and Torpedoes have limited ammo, often times far more limited than the number of cruise disruptors one ship can carry, despite the fact that nearly every ship has a cruise disruptor and in a group fight you effectively have unlimited cruise disruptor ammo because of this. For the person using things like capship missiles/torpedoes, or nova torpedoes, this is extremely frustrating; most, sometimes all, of your ordnance, which you're spending a valuable heavy weapon slot on, will end up getting neutralized before it even gets to the target. On top of the cruise disruptors, explosive ordnance weapons already have several other counters: flak turrets, countermeasures, and simple dodging on applicable ships. This means you've got 4+ ways that the enemy can shut down your limited ammo weapon, and no ways to make sure it works reliably.

CD ammo is not unlimited and not everyone has a CD. CDs are not guaranteed to deny a unit of ammunition everytime it is fired. False premise.

Point C: This is probably an unintended side effect, but when we have cloak disruptors and jump drive disruptors, do we really need cruise disruptors covering those roles as well?

You're implying that the cruise disruptor has the same effectiveness as a cloak disruptor at denying cloaking. Very misleading.

Ultimately, point is that cruise disruptors have too many uses, too many advantages, and arent limited enough in their ammunition or capabilities to counteract those strengths.

Well when you conduct one-sided analysis listing all the uses and strengths of an item without stopping to try and consider the opportunity costs or drawbacks it obviously appears that way.

And you really think that reducing the ammo capacity of cruise disruptors is going to break a fundamental aspect of the game?

Making people deploy their assets intelligently and with a bit of thought instead of spamming the hell out of them because of effectively unlimited ammo sounds like a pretty good balance standpoint to me.

Effectively unlimited ammo? Sounds like you have never played the other end of the interaction. CDs often run dry in a balanced fleet fight because there is constant high demand for it and because of glitches in tracking you can easily lose a few for free.
On the contrary, maybe you should deploy your missiles a little more intelligently and they won't all get CD'd.

I mean, we used to have unlimited ammo capship missiles, and what do you think caused them to get changed?

Are CDs unlimited? And what about the original nerf to the CD ammo count, what do you think caused it to get changed?

But should they be stopped so easily?

Are they stopped easily?

In my experience, which admittedly is mostly dated (I find it difficult to get into a proper brawl as of late), few people were willing to equip missiles because they pretty reliably got out-turned in a furball and CD'd in a joust. Only half of that is the CD's fault, of course, but the turning radius point you mention farther down your post is kind of irrelevant in the sort of fight where missiles have a good chance of hitting.

I really doubt you've tried a missile in the current version of discovery or you've participated in any snub-brawl event when missiles are far more dominant in snub-heavy brawls now than ever, CDs won't save you from chasers using missiles. It's far more important to have players on maxims and sidewinders/firestalkers/paralyzers putting out significant damage than it is to have negligible damage from CDs.

You can talk about the SNAC in a SNAC thread. If you're going to respond to every balance suggestion you don't like with "nope, you'll break it, history repeating itself", what's the point? Make a poll or post in flood if you're not interested in discussing anything.

It would literally be history repeating itself with another disaster since we've already went down this route.

---

[Kauket]

EK can be disrupted because it's to stop battleships cruise ek'ing onto people

---

[Hashida Suzuha]

Remove it's ability to disrupt charging cloaks. At best. The rest should be kept as it is.

Right now - cruise disruptor is a versatile auxiliary weapon filling quite a few roles, a little overpowered with the consideration of the issue mentioned above, namely - the disruption of charging cloaks, which is a bit too much. Yet, i can and i will argue with the rest: cruise disruptors have been fitting that role for a very long time, and the times any sort of "balance issues" with these have been raised - such threads have never got anywhere.
Yes, i took a moment to skim through the past threads mentioning cruise disruptors. Half of them have been involving removing cruise disruptors from NPCs, the other one - possible ways to "nerf" the weapon that isn't broken and overpowered as it is. Except the ability to disrupt charging cloaks.

To sum it up - cruise disruptors should have little to no changes, with the exception of necessary removal of their ability to disrupt charging cloaks.

[Vendetta]

Hey do you guys remember when Corile killed Haste by effectively using Mosq CD's and the next day all CD's lost 20 points of ammo and it was suddenly near impossible to pin a intercepted target down because of all the bugs that CD's + CM's have alongside their new low ammo limits?

That was a good change wasn't it. For everyone who didn't want to fight or be caught that is. It's been brought up several times here already, but it bears repeating.

This is idea is bad, has been attempted before, and was reverted because it was terrible.

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

---

Youtube

------

[Vexykin]

Hey do you guys remember when Corile killed Haste by effectively using Mosq CD's and the next day all CD's lost 20 points of ammo and it was suddenly near impossible to pin a intercepted target down because of all the bugs that CD's + CM's have alongside their new low ammo limits?

That was a good change wasn't it. For everyone who didn't want to fight or be caught that is. It's been brought up several times here already, but it bears repeating.

This is idea is bad, has been attempted before, and was reverted because it was terrible.

---

Tutorial Database

Liberty Rogues Official Discord:
https://discord.gg/Wt2RqVJ

Feel free to PM this account if you have any questions, I'm here to help!

[Greylock]

Remove it's ability to disrupt charging cloaks. At best. The rest should be kept as it is.

Right now - cruise disruptor is a versatile auxiliary weapon filling quite a few roles, a little overpowered with the consideration of the issue mentioned above, namely - the disruption of charging cloaks, which is a bit too much. Yet, i can and i will argue with the rest: cruise disruptors have been fitting that role for a very long time, and the times any sort of "balance issues" with these have been raised - such threads have never got anywhere.
Yes, i took a moment to skim through the past threads mentioning cruise disruptors. Half of them have been involving removing cruise disruptors from NPCs, the other one - possible ways to "nerf" the weapon that isn't broken and overpowered as it is. Except the ability to disrupt charging cloaks.

To sum it up - cruise disruptors should have little to no changes, with the exception of necessary removal of their ability to disrupt charging cloaks.

Hey do you guys remember when Corile killed Haste by effectively using Mosq CD's and the next day all CD's lost 20 points of ammo and it was suddenly near impossible to pin a intercepted target down because of all the bugs that CD's + CM's have alongside their new low ammo limits?

That was a good change wasn't it. For everyone who didn't want to fight or be caught that is. It's been brought up several times here already, but it bears repeating.

This is idea is bad, has been attempted before, and was reverted because it was terrible.

I'm going to keep quoting this because it's a perfect summary of the logic that's constantly applied as a justification for such a change. CDs do not need to be changed. If people keep suggesting silly changes then I'm just going to keep quoting Sean until the thread eventually gets locked.

What I have so kindly highlighted in red applies to removing the ability to disrupt charging cloaks. We wouldn't want to have a battleship cloak in the middle of a fight and decloak behind the enemies, would we?

---