(01-25-2019, 07:09 AM)The Flame Touched Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 07:09 AM)The Flame Touched Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 07:49 AM)Reeves Wrote:

(01-25-2019, 07:09 AM)The Flame Touched Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 12:39 AM)Tenacity Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 12:39 AM)Tenacity Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 12:39 AM)Tenacity Wrote: 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?

(01-25-2019, 12:39 AM)Tenacity Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 04:55 AM)Tenacity Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 04:55 AM)Tenacity Wrote: I mean, we used to have unlimited ammo capship missiles, and what do you think caused them to get changed?

(01-25-2019, 05:35 AM)Grumblesaur Wrote: But should they be stopped so easily?

(01-25-2019, 05:35 AM)Grumblesaur Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 06:16 AM)Grumblesaur Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 07:09 AM)The Flame Touched Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 07:09 AM)The Flame Touched Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 08:37 AM)Hashida Suzuha Wrote: 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.

(01-25-2019, 07:49 AM)Reeves Wrote:

(01-25-2019, 07:09 AM)The Flame Touched Wrote: 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.