Bias Concerning Snubcrafts (My Opinion and Suggestion to the Dev Team)

[Binski]

Yeah I have to disagree a bit on some of this.

The way it is now, BC and BS get flaks, and they still seem quite easily capable of deterring 100% of the torps from a lone bomber. You need the numbers of 2 or more just to get the dps to keep the shield down, and do hull damage. Even with smaller caps like cruisers and BC's, they have the maneuverability to dodge a lone bomber's torps. They work a little harder, but know that they can't be taken down in that situation unless they go idle.

You try to fly in to use a SNAC, Corona, ASURAS or Scortcher, you realistically have to get to around 800m at least to try to be effective. With TZ, hitting a snub in the 600-800 m range is pretty easy. That's why snubs try to torp from a distance, which makes them easy to get flak'd, which brings us back to the vicious cycle of stalemate that results from bothering to attack any capital ship as an individual bomber.

Storytime

The main problem is that back in the day, 1 lone bomber patrol could deter an enemy capital ship, because it was a given that the outcome was determined by it being only a matter of time before the bomber takes down the cap. Albeit, slowly. So the cap usually has the time to put up a fight, or slink to safety if still possible, and use an allied base for defense advantage, or dock before its too late. You could use both a snac and torp to shave away at a larger ship. Now as it stands, projectile weapons like torps, are useless on caps unless fired in large numbers. Caps don't fear just 1 bomber anymore, they can either avoid torps, flak them, and keep that lone bomber from doing too much damage at close range, being the only target to worry about.

It made more sense to me when even a single bomber had a shot at any capital vessel if they could drag the battle out long enough (depending mostly on where the engagement occurs). Things went better because when a bomber could pose a real threat to a cap, battles didn't last too long. The more bombers, even faster things went unless they were countered by smaller ships.

So from my perspective, the last while has actually shown more bias for capital ships. This is not even considering all of the changes to cloaking devices and jumpdrives just to keep capital ship flyers from getting jumped or cloak ambushed. Both problems could simply be negated by paying close attention to your environment, and not taking any chances like straying far from a safe base if you weren't sure of your safey or able to fight back if ambushed. See, some people sat pretty in their carriers yet became so purturbed if not every battle was like jousting where you always see your enemy coming at you fair and square with lots of warning. I've flown every class of ship, and as far as I was always concerned, when you launch a ship like that, you take responsibility for staying afloat. If you want to sit at Freeport 11 to chat but don't want to work at all to stay safe from Nomad ambush (for example), you should rethink your understanding of the game.

If it were me, I'd look at the list. If there were ships in the same system as me that might fit the profile of being able to cloak or jump, and be potentially hostile, I'd not sit there idly, or stray far from a base. If these things happen once battle has started, just accept you couldn't win them all for God's sakes. Those other players used accumulated skill (we literally train for stuff here) and accumulated tech to pull off those maneuvers, and it gets met with disdain by the loser!

Last point as to original topic, I liked the Corona as it was. Same with the SNAC. The corona was powerful, but being considered 'overpowerful' was really a matter of who got to wield it. I'd say limit it to bombers and SHFs, not just anything with a powercore and CD slot. 2 might be overkill, but with power drain it sort of doesn't matter for caps, only smaller ships that could be insta'd. So I'd support limiting 1 per ship. The range was lower than listed it seemed, and depended on what angled you approached a target from. Basically its about the same as a snac or scortcher was when it comes to capitals, but is otherwise useless to use for piracy, unlike a SNAC (til now), ASURAS or scorcher.

How to fix Corona

Lower range to 800m (which really mans UP TO 800 m depending on the vessel it seems, so is more like 600m),

Remove plugin nerfing dmg based on ship class.

Limit to 1 per ship

Limit to bombers and SHF's

How to fix Cap vs Bomber battles

^^^ Coronas as above, can't be flak'd, low enough range to give cap a fair chance at hitting the attacker. Not too short a range to make it insta easy kill (like 600 would guarantee).

Really the Corona is like the evolution of weaponry in Sirius. In real life, we attack with missiles and torps, our enemy uses countermeasures...flares, bullets, anti missile missiles, flak, etc.

So what counters that? In real life, particle weapons will be where we go. If you can't land a projectile because of deterrence, you go with energy weapons that can't be physically guarded against by a simple counter projectile. We would then try to counter with energy dissipation (shielding) and bam, we're in the world of star trek, star gate, Freelancer! The same purpose was behind these antimatter cannons. Low range, can't guide it, but too fast to intercept with anything but an energy shield you already use.

So if you think about it, where torpedoes fail, directed energy weapons prevail. The answer to flaks was antimatter cannons, but now can be Coronas. Ranges on these heavies should always be low if powerful, just not too low. That was the only real problem, and that is where the main balancing factor is for this.

Its just the same for cruisers/destroyers, as you can try to counter out maneuvering torpedoes with the beam weapon. Its already going to still be like this for caps, so the range is key all around.

So last issue is for transports. The plugin 'fixes' that. but its silly. yes its powerful, transports wind up the most vulnerable. But personally, if limited properly to Bombers and SHF's, it will add an edge to those ships, but I don't see it being the end of the trade. Having SNAC's wasn't, having a SNAC/NOVA combo, or a Scorcher/NOVA combo wasn't the end of trade either. Again, the toss up should be in the range. Bring them in close, even a transport has a chance. Bottom line, if you won't do well fighting a bomber with all those other heavy weapons, don't bother see Corona's any different.

There's always the possible counter of a new kind of shield. Or, since I haven't double checked the infocard, maybe one of the three shield types could be made to be more resistant to the Corona than others. That would make more sense as to why it might be less powerful against one ship or another, and its on players to play, and determine how much of a threat they face from this weapon, and let them choose a shield wisely. Time for a moneysink shield for traders only. It could be exactly like a normal shield spec wise, but reduce Corona damge by X% etc. That would be way cooler than just a nerf plugin!

RP wise even, Coronas are a new weapon. Do you invest in a new moneysink shield? Or take your chances?

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############