(01-23-2020, 12:44 PM)Durandal Wrote: Anti capital performance of bombers is currently not something that can really be seen as a problem, and buffing the speed on these guns is going to make bombers generally more effective versus gunboats and cruisers. To what degree is hard to say without thorough, extensive testing, and my initial proposal would probably be to buff their velocity to 600 and reduce their range to 700, thereby making them more effective as a defensive tool against snubcraft and hopefully maintaining their usefulness as an offensive tool against capital ships without buffing them hugely.
...
As to increasing SNAC velocity, that probably is not going to happen. The SNAC could definitely stand for a buff in performance against cruisers, but any buff you give it is also going to make it more effective against gunboats and battleships, which it's performing pretty well against at present.
Bomber performance of aces against caps isn't a problem and should probably stay as is, but in my experience of training and engaging with new players (which I've stopped doing because the staff does literally nothing to help with that, not even the simplest and most urgent things, and in parts even prevents me from doing them, actively keeping the mod unattractive for new players), the learning curve of bombers, and more generally snub combat, is.
When flying a snub against a cap, you need to learn to stay at the right distance, know how stable and predictable the crosshair is at what distance, know how and when to dodge, learn to time your SNAC and gun shots depending on energy regen, and develop a feeling and reflexes/automatic reactions for all of it. When you've done that, you'll reach the ceiling of damage/time output of your bomber/snub which depends solely on damage / energy use x power regen. You'll do the most damage you can do per time without receiving hull damage. As is, aces can currently achieve that ceiling (at least when flying a bomber against a cap), or can at least get very close to it. Gun velocity and range (and homing torpedoes/missiles) dont affect the height of that ceiling, but they influence how much training you need to get to it, and how well you do before you reached it with the same amount of training.
Here's a simplified learning curve for bombers.
(01-23-2020, 12:44 PM)Durandal Wrote: Fighter performance against capital ships is actually pretty satisfactory. The ideal meta here is that it takes more time but is achievable for fighters to kill a cap, which it is in most cases, the exception generally being cruisers. If I were going to change one thing about the way fighters and caps interact right now it would be to increase fighter shield resistance to capital ship weapons, thereby making caps diving into group brawls less of a death sentence to fighters without support. I'd be more in favor of this (fighter gun range buff) change if it wasn't such a death sentence to battleships, which fighters will be able to outrange and whittle down even more effortlessly than they can at present.
...
There's a vocal minority of aces who really, really want the old Starkiller and Sunslayer torpedoes reintroduced in a fashion that made them very, very effective when used in swarms chasing down groups of fighters. I'm going to make it clear right now that if we do this, it won't be that. I don't think that's what Karlotta is proposing here anyway. I actually did draft stats for such a weapon when aux slots were first introduced, designed to act as a nova-lite of sorts with approximately 20-30 torpedoes. The idea never gained traction within the balance team because of the belief that it would invalidate the use of bombers against capital ships, because despite it still being less effective it would give fighters far more flexibility than they have at present. As someone who mains fighters, I really, really like this idea. But I do have serious questions as to whether or not it would be the best thing we could do for healthy gameplay.
Fighters (and caps) are a bit like this simplified curve too, but not as much as bombers. The range issue matters a lot for vhf vs transport piracy in my experience, while caps still have very effective defense guns at 800 distance as far as I know, while being able to take much more damage either way. The removal of aux slots all together was a huge mistake, even more so since it was done because 1 or 2 aux weapons were OP and could easily just have been nerfed instead. For example, the starkiller could have been given a shorter range, high energy requirement, and very low damage, so that an inexperienced pilot would still be able to do some damage with some risk, while an experienced pilot would simply use guns instead of the the torpedo because he would be able to do more damage with it. It looked very much like the experienced pilot who made the dev decision simply didnt want inexperienced players to have a chance to do anything at all.
(01-23-2020, 12:44 PM)Durandal Wrote: My previous paragraph that I wrote about fighter torpedoes also applies here. Personally, I would love this, but I don't know if it's the best thing we could do for the game. We also need to keep in mind that any weapons affected by balance magic are going to increase server load, and even with a low refire weapon like the minirazor, we should only be making use of the plugin when absolutely necessary.
Yes it is true that touching sensitive numbers and changing gun velocities may screw up balance if not carefully thought prior to change. So i propose we try and do something simple, and if the change is too much it is not difficult to just revert to a former state. I mean isnt this the way testing is done? There is no harm in trying to increase bomber gun velocity. But if you go 600 m/sec, might be a bit too fast.
Rather try 550 m/sec for both Render and EMP with a range nerf to 750 meters. You would also need to adjust both AHRIMAN and HELLION to same range but velocity to 530 m/sec.
Now regarding the SNAC. People do agree that it needs a change, and i will state once more that all we need is a bit more scaling damage. Because you want bomber players to have a HARD not POINTLESS time versus fighters.
So, if tou make scaling damage to be: Hull=21000, Shield=10500, bomber is still pretty useless versus fighters, but a little less. And thats what players want, at least i think it is.
Look, i had 10 bombers before the SNAC scaling damage was introduced, and it was fun, it was a rush and it was training to perfection to land that one hit that made you feel like a god. Ok no good and fun for fighters and i totally agree.
Now i have 2 bombers and 1 that i actually play.
Reason is a way of thinking that 75% of players share with me: " Aaaah i wont go with bomber because if i run in to one little above average fighter, im toast for sure. "
And this is what we are trying to change to become:
" Ok ill go with a bomber this time, and if i run in to a fighter he will definitely have an advantage but if i REALLY try and combine weapons and ammo i might eventually win. I have 25 to 30% chance of winning. I will log my bomber this time."
And finally if a SNAC gets a 10 meters/sec velocity bonus and becomes equalised with ASURAS, i dont think it will ever become OP or broken.
We buffed Mini Razor from 380 m/sec to 400 m/sec and it didnt get much attention. Nothing really changed, nor would it with a SNAC velocity buff of 10 meters, but it would give bomber players one major thing. A psychic satisfaction and a feeling that they are not being ignored.
If you hear a hungry person cry and you give them something little to eat, they wont become superman, but he wont starve that day and will gain a feeling of being accepted.
I don't know all the details of the scaling damage atm, but maybe it should be scaled so each class (hf, vhf, bomber, shf) receives 80% of its best-mountable-armor hitpoints (of the lighter version of said class, since there are differences). Keeping bombers and SHFs instakillable by bombers and SHFs makes both classes kind of vulnerable.
What about adding turret zoom to bombers? This would also imply removing bomber guns because they are too slow. That should free up the space for another gun class, too. I'm thinking about them getting replaced by fighter turrets: 4 for each bomber, all of which fire backward and half forward. This way bombers can't really attack fighters, but they can defend. I'd like TSing a bomber, it has that WWII feel.
Bomber should not be used to combat fighters. They already can absolutely annihilate transports, larger cap ships, and the only two ships that can really take them out effectively are VHFs and GBs. That's kinda like, perfect balance.
Bombers don't need a buff. They shouldn't be capable of killing everything they come across easily. Bombers should only be able to defeat a VHF if there is an EXTREME skill mismatch between the two pilots, their role is to take down Caps, not be Space Superiority fighters.
I would say that if any damage buffs were to be done to Bombers, the appropriate thing would be to also lower their hitpoints and maneuverability. That way they may do more damage, but a VHF can use its maneuverability to take them down with ease.
But I suspect that's not the desire, the desire is to see Bombers be the answer to all questions. I played here when Bombers were like that. It was no fun. The only ships you encountered were bombers, because why fly anything else if it can kill everything? Pirates and Cops would have bomber fights, if you were a new player, you were guaranteed to get ganked by a bomber asking for a crapload of credits, but really just wanting to blow you up. It sucked, and was no fun. It was far more fun then to play the game away from others, rather than interact with each other, because it was just a stream of endless bombers harassing you.
(01-26-2020, 01:28 AM)fauee Wrote: Bomber should not be used to combat fighters. They already can absolutely annihilate transports, larger cap ships, and the only two ships that can really take them out effectively are VHFs and GBs. That's kinda like, perfect balance.
Bombers don't need a buff. They shouldn't be capable of killing everything they come across easily. Bombers should only be able to defeat a VHF if there is an EXTREME skill mismatch between the two pilots, their role is to take down Caps, not be Space Superiority fighters.
I would say that if any damage buffs were to be done to Bombers, the appropriate thing would be to also lower their hitpoints and maneuverability. That way they may do more damage, but a VHF can use its maneuverability to take them down with ease.
But I suspect that's not the desire, the desire is to see Bombers be the answer to all questions. I played here when Bombers were like that. It was no fun. The only ships you encountered were bombers, because why fly anything else if it can kill everything? Pirates and Cops would have bomber fights, if you were a new player, you were guaranteed to get ganked by a bomber asking for a crapload of credits, but really just wanting to blow you up. It sucked, and was no fun. It was far more fun then to play the game away from others, rather than interact with each other, because it was just a stream of endless bombers harassing you.
Ah great, another straight line flyer!!! Dude, no disrespect, but if you read ANY of our beneficial rant, you would have found out that we want to make bombers have a hard but possible time with VHFs, there was no mention that ANY of us want them to be extra super katana turbo ninja superiority.
Please read the thread, then comment, and stop whinning because you got SNACed a few times. It happened to most of us, until we learned how to fly. Question, do you like running in to bomber and laughing as he will pose no threat to you and you can drink coffee and smoke cigars while your winning him?? Do you like winning a fight with zero challange?
If so, then your the one who doesnt respect balance, not us bomber pilots
(01-26-2020, 01:56 AM)Baphomet Wrote: we want to make bombers have a hard but possible time with VHFs
Way I see it there in lies the problem.
Right now there's something of a rock paper scissors thing going on. If you let rock beat paper in certain conditions then there's a lot less incentive and reward to playing paper.
Allowing bombers to trump fighters if they "get good" enough means that getting good in a bomber is far more rewarding then someone who dedicates themselves to getting good in a fighter which may encounter enemies that no amount of skill will let him overcome.
(01-26-2020, 01:28 AM)fauee Wrote: Bomber should not be used to combat fighters. They already can absolutely annihilate transports, larger cap ships, and the only two ships that can really take them out effectively are VHFs and GBs. That's kinda like, perfect balance.
Bombers don't need a buff. They shouldn't be capable of killing everything they come across easily. Bombers should only be able to defeat a VHF if there is an EXTREME skill mismatch between the two pilots, their role is to take down Caps, not be Space Superiority fighters.
I would say that if any damage buffs were to be done to Bombers, the appropriate thing would be to also lower their hitpoints and maneuverability. That way they may do more damage, but a VHF can use its maneuverability to take them down with ease.
But I suspect that's not the desire, the desire is to see Bombers be the answer to all questions. I played here when Bombers were like that. It was no fun. The only ships you encountered were bombers, because why fly anything else if it can kill everything? Pirates and Cops would have bomber fights, if you were a new player, you were guaranteed to get ganked by a bomber asking for a crapload of credits, but really just wanting to blow you up. It sucked, and was no fun. It was far more fun then to play the game away from others, rather than interact with each other, because it was just a stream of endless bombers harassing you.
You have made yourself the enemy of all the bomber players that think an anti-cap class is supposed to be able to fight fighters.
but +1 my dude I think you hit the nail on the head
![[Image: r3w9OCx.png]](https://i.imgur.com/r3w9OCx.png)
![[Image: 396AUfe.png]](https://i.imgur.com/396AUfe.png)
![[Image: 3tN2x9Z.png]](http://i.imgur.com/3tN2x9Z.png)