(04-07-2018, 10:28 AM)Galaxian Wrote: But it wouldn't matter either way?
Plus transports' ability to survive would really go up.
Whether it matters or not is a matter of yours and everyone else perspective. Accidentally it is a topic of this discussion.
The only thing it would change regarding survive ability, is that transport could survive a bigger blow at one time (1 torp or something). But it does not change the amount of damage they can survive overall. (they will still die on second hit)
I feel like this is all about Pirates being able to do less damage when they want to. In which case, reduce damage, increase fire rate and ammo count, as has been proposed already.
Well, if we consider it, pirates are a vital part of the economy.
Without pirates, there's fairly little for Lawfuls to really do, other than shoot other, foreign lawfuls. And one of the problems there is, there's only really Gallia to shoot at. No one else is really at war. Meaning, a lot of cool capitals and other ships are going unused. If there is a dip in profit do to pirates, Lawful factions are usually created to try and stop (Or encourage intereaction with) pirate faction.
The only time this isn't true however, appears to be Liberty, which got too far ahead of that curve and made piracy difficult, leaving a 'too big to fail' blob of Lawful, with only unorganized indies to shoot at, and the occasional borderworlds faction, but even that is rare.
(04-07-2018, 10:28 AM)Galaxian Wrote: But it wouldn't matter either way?
Plus transports' ability to survive would really go up.
Whether it matters or not is a matter of yours and everyone else perspective. Accidentally it is a topic of this discussion.
The only thing it would change regarding survive ability, is that transport could survive a bigger blow at one time (1 torp or something). But it does not change the amount of damage they can survive overall. (they will still die on second hit)
I feel like this is all about Pirates being able to do less damage when they want to. In which case, reduce damage, increase fire rate and ammo count, as has been proposed already.
P.S.: Isnt everything about pirates these days?
Hey, I am proposing an idea that could prevent trader deaths. While it is related to piracy, it's much more pro-trader suggestion. You forgot to take into account, that changing SNAC mechanics would affect much bigger part of PvP than just bomber vs trader.
My idea stems from personal experience of facing all-or-nothing situation against unarmored newbies. I want to pirate them for some credits, but their refuse to yield because they don't see damage done against them. This change could bring them to such position where they might lose 66% hull after one SNAC and reconsider their choice. Which is win-win for everyone. Newbies don't get insta-killed, pirate gets paid a bit, everyone leaves a bit happier than current situation.
Posts: 3,194
Threads: 196
Joined: Nov 2009
Staff roles: Systems Lead
My short thoughts - last paragraph of this thread. I support the idea given by Snak3.
(04-07-2018, 01:16 AM)Kazinsal Wrote: It would not be hard to write a plugin that cleanses ships of nanobots if they can't have nanobots.
That'd be very helpful.
(04-07-2018, 01:19 AM)Karlotta Wrote: Its still confusing and counter-intuitive to have 300 nano capacity that you're not allowed to use, even if some flhook gimmik makes it impossible to use them. Insta-kill snak has been an issue for much longer than this, and a simple fix was and is is to reduce snac damage and increase refire rate. I'm pretty sure it would have been done if peeps-in-charge wouldnt enjoy insta-killing unsuspecting noobs so much.
(or replace nova torp with snac, problem is the same)
Please. You couldn't contradict yourself more with the first and the last sentence. First things first, you wouldn't have 300 nanobots you're "not allowed to use" because the nanobot cap would be 0 and you wouldn't have any on your ship, so there are no 300 magically popping out of nowhere to repair your ship. If you mean the beginning of transition when the ships get their hull changed but keep the nanobots until they die or dock, I doubt it'd be an issue. Battleships and battlecruisers received the same treatment, and keeping nanobots on them has an incomparably higher impact on fights. Seeing as their transition went smoothly and those who decided to abuse this exploit mostly got their ships deleted, there's little to worry about.
SNAC only instakills people who don't have an AU8, and frankly those ships deserve to die. The risk of not having an armor upgrade is high chance of getting instakiled, it's as simple as that. If you ask most armorless transports why they didn't buy an armor upgrade, they'll say it's because it takes up cargo space. They know they'd like to have one, but they don't want to lose profit on it. The problem is obviously that an AU8 takes up only 25 cargo space so if it saves you once in 200 trips on a 5ker it's worth the purchase. A new player doesn't see this and just looks at max profit, immediately. They accept that risk and are aware of it, but decide to roll with it anyways.
Second, if you reduced SNAC damage and increased refire rate to appeal to transports you mess with balance of all classes. As a weapon that interacts with everything to an extent, changing it to shoot more often with less damage and energy would give more instakill opprtunities against snubs. We don't need more, we need less opportunities given to bombers to SNAC a snub. It'd also mean that the "peeps-in-charge who enjoy insta-killing unsuspecting noobs" (I'll assume this is directed at me) get to do it more often, which contradicts your whole point. It'd also be a nerf against caps because having to shoot it more often means you're exposed to danger more often. And finally, changing such a high impact weapon when looking at interactions between classes to appeal for transports of all classes is ridiculous.
Edit: Pirate transports would benefit from this because the ratio of getting instakilled/instakilling someone right now is higher than 1. That means this change would be a buff because it reduces that gap to exactly 1. They're still transports at the end of the day, and they'll rarely instakill other transports or any ship in general (a very bad snub that forgot to use regens and got hit so often by charons). You'll suffer from not being able to refill on NPCs for instance, but it's such a minor and negligible thing.
Also, we'd be crazy to balance based on armorless transports. Balancing on subomtimal loadouts or tacits is a recipe for disaster. If I took my fighter, mindlessly jousted a bomber and got instakilled and then proceeded to complain how fighters are garbage and need a buff, or if I take cruiser solarises, duel another cruiser, lose and complain how solarises are bad and need a buff, where'd balance be? Ships and equipment have a purpose, they have things they're good against and bad against. Not having an armor upgrade on your ship makes you worse against everything, and appealing to someone without an armor would only result in those -with- an armor benefiting the most.
(04-07-2018, 01:33 PM)Antonio Wrote: If you mean the beginning of transition when the ships get their hull changed but keep the nanobots until they die or dock, I doubt it'd be an issue. Battleships and battlecruisers received the same treatment, and keeping nanobots on them has an incomparably higher impact on fights. Seeing as their transition went smoothly and those who decided to abuse this exploit mostly got their ships deleted, there's little to worry about.
I mean when people first buy a battleship when they had a cruiser, and the remaining nanos are transferred to the BS. That can happen at any time, and someone who doesnt know about the no-nano use on BS policy is bound to use them, and by the look of things get sanctioned. I worry about that because it happened to me twice when I upgraded to an Osiris and to a Neph, and I only noticed I couldnt buy new nanos when I used up the ones I had from the previous cap. Shortly afterwards I saw a guy get his cap deleted for using nanos, and I guess it could have happened to me too if I had used them in PvP instead of PvE. So yeah... I worry that the same thing is likely to happen to others, because it happened to me two times without me knowing it was an offense. (EDIT: At least that's my interpretation of what happened because I don't know when exactly the change was made by devs and it was some months ago. Could be I'm mistaken)
That being said, I still don't know what the point of the no-nanos on BS policy is at all, since nanos cant be transferred during pvp anymore.
(04-07-2018, 01:33 PM)Antonio Wrote: SNAC only instakills people who don't have an AU8, and frankly those ships deserve to die. The risk of not having an armor upgrade is high chance of getting instakiled, it's as simple as that. If you ask most armorless transports why they didn't buy an armor upgrade, they'll say it's because it takes up cargo space. They know they'd like to have one, but they don't want to lose profit on it. The problem is obviously that an AU8 takes up only 25 cargo space so if it saves you once in 200 trips on a 5ker it's worth the purchase. A new player doesn't see this and just looks at max profit, immediately. They accept that risk and are aware of it, but decide to roll with it anyways.
Removing armor can also make the difference between having to make 3 trips instead of 2 when you need exactly 10000 to build something. I'm less worried about transports than about snubs though.
(04-07-2018, 01:33 PM)Antonio Wrote: Second, if you reduced SNAC damage and increased refire rate to appeal to transports you mess with balance of all classes. As a weapon that interacts with everything to an extent, changing it to shoot more often with less damage and energy would give more instakill opprtunities against snubs. We don't need more, we need less opportunities given to bombers to SNAC a snub. It'd also mean that the "peeps-in-charge who enjoy insta-killing unsuspecting noobs" (I'll assume this is directed at me) get to do it more often, which contradicts your whole point. It'd also be a nerf against caps because having to shoot it more often means you're exposed to danger more often. And finally, changing such a high impact weapon when looking at interactions between classes to appeal for transports of all classes is ridiculous.
Concerning the snac, the intention was to reduce their damage below the amount needed to instakill a snub, and raise refire rate accordingly. Raising base armor and reducing number of nanos can be part of that. "The peeps in charge who enjoy insta-killing unsuspecting noobs" referred to other people who bragged about it and later ended up as balance devs. I don't recall you being one of those I was thinking of, but who it was is besides the point. The point is that somewhat "bold" dev moves that would fix certain problems but upset people who love to have a disproportionate PvP advantage over noobs aren't being made because of fear of the later, and it's been like that for ever. Instead there'e constant squabbling about small insignificant changes like removing nanos from BS even if they cant pass bots anyway anymore, and even if there are negative consequences like "cheating" without knowing it.
Quote:Concerning the snac, the intention was to reduce their damage below the amount needed to instakill a snub, and raise refire rate accordingly. Raising base armor and reducing number of nanos can be part of that. "The peeps in charge who enjoy insta-killing unsuspecting noobs" referred to other people who bragged about it and later ended up as balance devs. I don't recall you being one of those I was thinking of, but who it was is besides the point. The point is that somewhat "bold" dev moves that would fix certain problems but upset people who love to have a disproportionate PvP advantage over noobs aren't being made because of fear of the later, and it's been like that for ever. Instead there'e constant squabbling about small insignificant changes like removing nanos from BS even if they cant pass bots anyway anymore, and even if there are negative consequences like "cheating" without knowing it.
That is possibly one of the most horrible ideas I've ever heard, no offence. The SNAC thing.
And correct me if I'm wrong but....
The SNAC does some 250K Damage.
The Averaged Armored up VHF, has something akin to 30K Health.
So you're saying that the SNAC, an Anti Capital Ship Weapon, that is painfully easy to dodge. To the Point where you have a decent chance of not being hit even if you're standing still, should be reduced to less than 1/8th of it's damage. It's hard enough to stick close to a Battleship with a Bomber and keep consistent damage, especially by yourself. But, that's also intentional, since they are suitably hard to take down from a Battleship in turn. If we reduce the damage to that number, it essentially becomes a slightly buffed Mini Razor. At which point, the question can really be asked. Why fly a bomber at all? Since you can get BETTER utility out of having a more maneuverable,faster, and better at defending itself VHF.
Edit: Checked the Numbers. Okay it does about half the damage I thought it did, so it'd only be reduced to 1/4th, rather than 1/8th...sounds less dramatic, same result.
Posts: 3,194
Threads: 196
Joined: Nov 2009
Staff roles: Systems Lead
A rapid-firing SNAC that doesn't instakill VHFs but has more dps = scorchers. Not only do they have more than 4 times the dps, but also double the efficiency. They're much more deadly than a SNAC against transports that don't die to 1 SNAC instantly. But if their armor is so low that they die to 1 SNAC, it's low that they'll die to scorchers super quickly as well.
SNACs are primarily for bombers to deal damage to cap ships. Landing one on a snub's hull will instakill it yes, but that's not easy to do, it's a high risk high reward exercise that seems to be is fine as it is.
If SNACs are to be changed in any way, that would actually have to increase their damage with maybe a decrease in efficiency or refire. The point of the SNAC is to dump the ship's core into burst damage against larger ships. This burst damage allows the much lighter snubs to get in and out of the range of the highly dangerous cap weaponry quickly. A higher refire, lower damage SNAC goes completely against the intent of the weapon as it would require longer periods spent in a position where the cap can annihilate the snub with ease.
Bomber energy cannons fill this purpose. I think their excellent dps and efficiency are often overlooked, but they of course require being close to a large ship for extended periods to expend the bomber's core and are not ideal for anti-cap work.
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Signature:
![[Image: i3rkF8H.png]](http://i.imgur.com/i3rkF8H.png)
![[Image: rTrJole.png]](https://i.imgur.com/rTrJole.png)
![[Image: LJ88XSk.png]](https://i.imgur.com/LJ88XSk.png)
![[Image: ka0AQa5.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ka0AQa5.png)
![[Image: QwWqCS8.png]](https://i.imgur.com/QwWqCS8.png)
![[Image: BMdBL0j.png]](https://i.imgur.com/BMdBL0j.png)
![[Image: stDvDRX.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/stDvDRX.jpg)