+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Are ships too tough? (/showthread.php?tid=59146)
Are ships too tough? - Not Espi - 05-01-2011
delete au's. done.
Are ships too tough? - Kontrazec (Somni) - 05-01-2011
As people say, dogfights DO last too damn long, unless you're really good or really lucky with mines and/or MR. Now, we don't want WWII dogfights, pewpew and 72 fighters down in 30 seconds, but we could use a little more realism. I mean honestly, how much can nanobots fix? What if the shot penetrated the hull and ruptured a say...coolant pipe? Could nanos replace the fluid that poured out? I say the best way to counter this is to either lower the nano count to say... 20-30 per fighter, even less for small fighters. Also, remove the ability to farm bots by killing npc's and make players drop zero nanos when they die if they had any.
Quick edit @ Vlko: That would result in mines being way op, and MR would insta everything except the toughest bombers. So uhm... Nah.
Are ships too tough? - Hone - 05-01-2011
remove AUs, razors and SACs, buff torps.
Are ships too tough? - SevereTrinity - 05-02-2011
Bring back instakills from 4.84. Those were the days.
Are ships too tough? - Dashiell - 05-02-2011
like I suggested: less botts and batts or lose armor mulipliers or make em weaker. Advantages, imho:
- GBs may actually do their jobs: annoy snubs and be a proper dangerous escort against snubs
- Solaris and flak really become dangerous and do their job. even in their current form. Same can maybe even be said of flak
- dogfights won't take 30 minutes per fighter IF he doesnt run and retocks.
- Light fighters actually beome dangerous
- bombers lose their omi-potence and have to start actually worying about getting hit.
- transports may be able to bite back a bit more. because right now, their combat abilities are laugable. even for a transport ship.
- ships will become cheaper. as right now, the UAU 8 is 15 mils, for a ship that costs 1-3 mils... This might even stimulate snub useage
------
con however is: NPCs will actually become a threat to player snubs. In some scenarios that's good. In others, it will become a pain.
and the most obvious con: the lesser pilots may be mowed down in great numbers. 20 seconds of action, 4 hours of waiting.
Are ships too tough? - NonSequitor - 05-02-2011
' Wrote:like I suggested: less botts and batts or lose armor mulipliers or make em weaker. Advantages, imho:
- GBs may actually do their jobs: annoy snubs and be a proper dangerous escort against snubs
- Solaris and flak really become dangerous and do their job. even in their current form. Same can maybe even be said of flak
- dogfights won't take 30 minutes per fighter IF he doesnt run and retocks.
- Light fighters actually beome dangerous
- bombers lose their omi-potence and have to start actually worying about getting hit.
- transports may be able to bite back a bit more. because right now, their combat abilities are laugable. even for a transport ship.
- ships will become cheaper. as right now, the UAU 8 is 15 mils, for a ship that costs 1-3 mils... This might even stimulate snub useage
------
con however is: NPCs will actually become a threat to player snubs. In some scenarios that's good. In others, it will become a pain.
and the most obvious con: the lesser pilots may be mowed down in great numbers. 20 seconds of action, 4 hours of waiting.
Wisdom of the ages. Hear this man, o unwashed peasants of pvpdom!
The 4-hour lockdown has always been sort of a mystery to me. Wouldn't 2 hours be enough for someone to quash their temper tantrum after losing a fight? I mean, If you're set on holding a grudge, 4 hours won't even put a dent in it.
The only potential problem I see in Dashmeister's suggestion is the increase threat posed by GBs. Oh no - caps getting an advantage over snubs! We can't have that, can we? Of course, if fighters and bombers were to undergo a bot and bat liposuction procedure, GBs would, no doubt, get a compensational nerf. For example getting turn speeds halved, or something equally as emasculating.
Are ships too tough? - Dashiell - 05-02-2011
' Wrote:Wisdom of the ages. Hear this man, o unwashed peasants of pvpdom!
The 4-hour lockdown has always been sort of a mystery to me. Wouldn't 2 hours be enough for someone to quash their temper tantrum after losing a fight? I mean, If you're set on holding a grudge, 4 hours won't even put a dent in it.
The only potential problem I see in Dashmeister's suggestion is the increase threat posed by GBs. Oh no - caps getting an advantage over snubs! We can't have that, can we? Of course, if fighters and bombers were to undergo a bot and bat liposuction procedure, GBs would, no doubt, get a compensational nerf. For example getting turn speeds halved, or something equally as emasculating.
That's true. But think of non-cap using factions. They shouldn't be affected negatively by this. Xenos, Bundshuh etc can't field caps. So if their snubs suffer a loss in effectiveness, they need to be compensated somehow balance wise.
Are ships too tough? - JIVA - 05-02-2011
an old suggestion - that was dismissed by devs/community (although i still think it would be a good solution)
- E-kill automaticly drops a ship to travel speed ( 80 )
- Thrust drains the thruster MUCH faster ( like 3-4 times quicker ) and replenishes a LOT slower
- keep the bats / bots - but make it so that a ship ( every ship ) can replenish 1x 100%
- reduce the STRAFING of HF mk2, VHF mk2, SHF - and keep the strafing for LF mk1/2, HF mk1
- delete the strafing from bomber! - dodging by spiralling or just flying works, too. its hard to hit a bomber that is "corkscrewing" - but it also makes it harder / more skillful for a bomber to place a good shot out of a corkscrew manouver.
- decrease AUs to be a LOT less effective
- increase shield MAX capacity to at least 4 times ( 2 times for LF, 3 times for HF, 4 times or more for VHF and bombers )
- increase shield "types" from 20%+ - .... to 50%+ -
- decrease shield "regeneration" to be VERY slow
- GB weapons speed is significantly reduced
result:
- LF/HF are differently effective - they can still avoid a lot of damage - but cannot dish out that much
- shield bubbles are a lot easier to hit than hulls - so their large capacity makes it both ... stronger, but also more vulnerable - it also means that shield busters are a lot more required
- bombers are very vulnerable but not to capital ship guns if they keep a distance... they drop quickly to fighters though, cause they cannot strafe
- weapontypes determine a lot more about a victory vs. a defeat, cause the bulk of the damage goes to the shield and not the hull
- less thrust and no E-kill thrust makes rediculous 20g manouvers impossible.
Are ships too tough? - SevereTrinity - 05-02-2011
' Wrote:an old suggestion - that was dismissed by devs/community
- E-kill automaticly drops a ship to travel speed ( 80 )
:|
Are ships too tough? - Slartibartfast - 05-02-2011
' Wrote:an old suggestion - that was dismissed by devs/community (although i still think it would be a good solution)
- E-kill automaticly drops a ship to travel speed ( 80 )
- Thrust drains the thruster MUCH faster ( like 3-4 times quicker ) and replenishes a LOT slower
- something about reducing strafe
result:
He who starts hitting the opponent's head sooner, wins.
Nah, seriously. That'd make fights quite retarded.
On topic, I'm all for decreasing the number of bots/bats for all of the ship classes.