Revert cruiser slots changes

[Australopithecus]

....BC heavy pointed forward.

My brother in Christ. If your main weapon is facing backwards, or sideways, that's your new front. You come up with a way to utilize it.
Maybe like a mafia driveby situation.

imo BC at the moment is a bigger cruiser with BB hitpoints and more energy.
hear me out;
BC had battleship weapons, which were the better weapons at the time. It didn't had 4 heavy cruiser weapons, you could mount 8 mortars if you wanted, not going to work.
The reason why, we didn't had a battleship to face their battleship. That was the alternative solution to the lack of firepower.
Now you guys are being more inclusive, pick whichever ship suits you. Kinda iron out the HP/bots here and there, i get that.

I have a BC and its main armament is a heavy Battlecruiser weapon. Not 4 Cruiser weapons. That's not the purpose of this ship.
Why on God-forsaken planet Earth, my top weapon lacking coverage?

---

[Schxer]

Thank you for taking the time to respond constructively to my post. Much appreciated.
Now...

Ideally you'd like your strongest gun to protect your weakest spot (engines), and technically the Battlecruiser weapon isn't backwards only rather it doesn't shoot forward (still shoots sideways just fine). Battlecruisers have enough front firepower as is, with it you have a balanced front and back/side firepower.

Thing is, you are looking at this backwards. As the main heaviest weapon of the ship class, it should be front facing. And then the ship should be balanced accordingly, as needed imo.

I really wish we recorded the early Battlecruiser fights me and Haste had when the BC heavy pointed forward to show people proof of how utterly, unapologetically terrible the gameplay was back then. If the heavy points forwards, then the best play is to drive straight at the enemy, and shoot your gun. That's all. You do nothing else with the rest of your guns. You don't broadside, you don't kite, you just joust until someone dies. There's no gameplay involved, at all. It was the same for Gunboats too before the mine was introduced, for the record. You just drove at the enemy with your forward gun and held down right click. Riveting gameplay.

Cruisers, before the rework, suffered from the age-old issue of "more armor ship more winner" because whoever had the bigger numbers just won, similar to old Gunboats. Cruisers *after* the rework suffered from "You made one mistake, I got behind you, I have won the fight", because their heavies pointed forwards so the best strategy was to drive forward and hold right click with said heavies. Notice a trend?

We are well aware that Battlecruisers and Cruisers look very silly with their biggest guns pointed straight backwards, but without this theres next to no depth to them at all. It just devolves into mindless right clicking until someone loses.

I understand. But then I have to say, with the main BC gun as it is now, it's a kiting only game against most other classes.
Against GBs, none of the Cruiser guns are viable unless the GB gets really close to your face. The kiting gun is the most useful among all available options, yet still only if the GB is somewhat close and is chasing you.
Against Cruisers, if the opponent is an experienced player, they can just keep at their max shooting distance and slowly kill you. The cruiser can easily outmaneuver all available cruiser weapons when the BC is charging. Spamming missiles is probably the best option in this case, and yet if the opponent is experienced, they'd still figure their way around it. The heavy gun is the most useful, but again only when the cruiser chases you and gets closer to you. And well if you stop charging and turn to use your main gun, they can just stay away until you're left with no option but to charge them again.
Against Battlecruisers, the winner is whoever is able to use their main gun efficiently, conserving powercore while fighting broadside most of the time, all while trying to gain the advantage by directly kiting. Because whoever kites efficiently, wins the fight.
All this is based on countless hours and battles pre-5.1

Pre-5.0 the guns worked fine. Every class available on BC had it's use. The guns all fired 360°. And it didn't cause the issue of kiting/charging-only like you and I mentioned. What exactly was the need to change all of that?

[Traxit]

Notice a trend?

This explanation lands the bullseye
and is also presented like we are five years old.
I applaud you, good sir(@pillow), sincerely.

To me it reads like OP wants more guns in both slots, to function and look the same as the old ones.
To which I would advocate for, give us more!

Although, I do think it sounds like an illusion of choice...
An efficient Storm on your Defense, and then another - inefficient but punchier - Storm on your Offense.
For some reason, I think @Haste sucks(lol) already thought of that...

---

The best Video Game OST
Just Got Better

[Haste]

I dislike the idea of just making "forward-facing" and "backward-facing" copies of the same gun. Not only is it lazy, it also loses us some visual clarity. Right now, I know what to expect from a Storm, a Light Mortar, or a Tachyon. It'll always do the same amount of damage, etc. The forward and backward facing versions would not be the same, as Cruiser Heavies are faster and less efficient by design to set them apart from Defense Turrets. I think we already have the solution implemented in the game anyways: the Cruiser Razor - even if it may be a bit (too) difficult to acquire right now (?) - effectively is a forward-facing version of the Storm. It's a hybrid hullbuster but it's still distinct from the Storm.

TL;DR what if we just had more guns and they were still unique

---

[JadeTornado]

I dislike the idea of just making "forward-facing" and "backward-facing" copies of the same gun. Not only is it lazy, it also loses us some visual clarity. Right now, I know what to expect from a Storm, a Light Mortar, or a Tachyon. It'll always do the same amount of damage, etc. The forward and backward facing versions would not be the same, as Cruiser Heavies are faster and less efficient by design to set them apart from Defense Turrets. I think we already have the solution implemented in the game anyways: the Cruiser Razor - even if it may be a bit (too) difficult to acquire right now (?) - effectively is a forward-facing version of the Storm. It's a hybrid hullbuster but it's still distinct from the Storm.

TL;DR what if we just had more guns and they were still unique

I liked the idea and your reply makes me think it was done for the sake of "not be the same". It wasn't a problem to make a more energy-efficient Impact and name it "Desintegrator" in the last patch, and I knew what to expect from it.
But you've hidden the solution behind (difficult) grind. Why, if we'll get the analog of a gun from 5.0 anyway?

---

In a live role playing environment, you are not owed or mandated to be given a duel. Fights develop differently every time and people have varying degree of time to log on their hands or have their own plans.

Cap PVP discord server

[Fab]

5.0 weapons (Class 8 gun, excludes faction and nomads)

Normal (9):
- Light Mortar
- Cruiser Tachyon Lance
- Cruiser Storm Cannon
- Cruiser Impact Cannon
- Cruiser Shard Cannon
- Cruiser Solaris Gatling
- Cruiser Siege Cannon
- Marauder Missile Turret
- Devastator Torpedo Turret

CODES (4):
- Cruiser Repeater Turret
- Cruiser Blaster Turret
- Cruiser Mauler Turret
- Cruiser Ion Blaster

# of Weapons: 13

5.1 weapons (Class 7 gun: Defense, Class 8 gun: Heavy)
Heavy Normal (6):
- Light Mortar
- Cruiser Solaris Gatling
- Cruiser Siege Cannon
- Cruiser Tachyon Lance
- Marauder Missile Turret
- Devastator Torpedo Turret
Heavy CODES (5):
- Cruiser Battle Razor
- Cruiser Blaster Turret
- Cruiser Hybrid Mortar
- Cruiser Repeater Turret
- Cruiser Wraith Cannon
# of Heavy Weapons: 11

Defense Normal (3):
- Cruiser Storm Cannon
- Cruiser Impact Cannon
- Cruiser Shard Cannon
Defense CODES (3):
- Cruiser Defense Mortar
- Cruiser Ion Blaster
- Cruiser Mauler Turret
# of Defense Weapons: 6

Permutations in a version 5.0 4-slot cruiser: 13^4 = 28.561
Permutations in a version 5.0 3-slot cruiser: 13^3 = 2.197

Permutations in a version 5.1 2h/2d (4-slot) cruiser: 11*11*6*6 = 4.356
Permutations in a version 5.1 2h/1d (3-slot) cruiser: 11*11*6 = 726
Permutations in a version 5.1 1h/2d (3-slot) cruiser: 11*6*6 = 396

---

as you can see, from version 5.0 to patch 5.1, the number of possible loadouts dropped drastically. What makes matters worse is that some of the new guns that should improve choices are fabricated and can't be bought from NPCs, so most of us is stuck with tachyon/mortar/solaris gat (3 options) for heavy and another 3 options for Defense, which is a wimpy permutation of 3^4 for a 4 slot cruiser and 3^3 for a 3 slotter.

---

ARES / Faction Information / Feedback

[Haste]

I dislike the idea of just making "forward-facing" and "backward-facing" copies of the same gun. Not only is it lazy, it also loses us some visual clarity. Right now, I know what to expect from a Storm, a Light Mortar, or a Tachyon. It'll always do the same amount of damage, etc. The forward and backward facing versions would not be the same, as Cruiser Heavies are faster and less efficient by design to set them apart from Defense Turrets. I think we already have the solution implemented in the game anyways: the Cruiser Razor - even if it may be a bit (too) difficult to acquire right now (?) - effectively is a forward-facing version of the Storm. It's a hybrid hullbuster but it's still distinct from the Storm.

TL;DR what if we just had more guns and they were still unique

I liked the idea and your reply makes me think it was done for the sake of "not be the same". It wasn't a problem to make a more energy-efficient Impact and name it "Desintegrator" in the last patch, and I knew what to expect from it.
But you've hidden the solution behind (difficult) grind. Why, if we'll get the analog of a gun from 5.0 anyway?

Well, because it's not quite a "Forward Storm", it's a gun with its own identity, though it fills a similar niche. The amount of grind required for them I'm unfamiliar with, and from the sounds of it is more than what was intended, but I can't say I've really looked into it much. I'd be all for both more open use and codename/PoB-built guns, though. Just a matter of making them and trying to keep them unique.

Permutations in a version 5.0 4-slot cruiser: 13^4 = 28.561
Permutations in a version 5.0 3-slot cruiser: 13^3 = 2.197

Permutations in a version 5.1 2h/2d (4-slot) cruiser: 11*11*6*6 = 4.356
Permutations in a version 5.1 2h/1d (3-slot) cruiser: 11*11*6 = 726
Permutations in a version 5.1 1h/2d (3-slot) cruiser: 11*6*6 = 396

---

as you can see, from version 5.0 to patch 5.1, the number of possible loadouts dropped drastically. What makes matters worse is that some of the new guns that should improve choices are fabricated and can't be bought from NPCs, so most of us is stuck with tachyon/mortar/solaris gat (3 options) for heavy and another 3 options for Defense, which is a wimpy permutation of 3^4 for a 4 slot cruiser and 3^3 for a 3 slotter.

I feel like we should be more occupied with the number of viable loadouts than with some theoretical number of loadouts of which the vast majority saw no use as they underperformed compared to your average cookie cutter shard loadout.

---

[JadeTornado]

Well, because it's not quite a "Forward Storm", it's a gun with its own identity, though it fills a similar niche. The amount of grind required for them I'm unfamiliar with, and from the sounds of it is more than what was intended, but I can't say I've really looked into it much. I'd be all for both more open use and codename/PoB-built guns, though. Just a matter of making them and trying to keep them unique.

Mkay, I'll continue testing it.

---

In a live role playing environment, you are not owed or mandated to be given a duel. Fights develop differently every time and people have varying degree of time to log on their hands or have their own plans.

Cap PVP discord server

[Fab]

I feel like we should be more occupied with the number of viable loadouts

mayhaps. It is more about the sheer difference between the numbers of 5.0 and 5.1, which will for sure translate into the unknown number of viable loadouts.

---

ARES / Faction Information / Feedback

[Corvo Gotti]

Thing is, you are looking at this backwards. As the main heaviest weapon of the ship class, it should be front facing. And then the ship should be balanced accordingly, as needed imo.

I have to say I agree with Schxer here. Not necessarily in that the heaviest weapon should be front facing, but that a ship's heaviest weapon should always be considered its main weapon, and thus be positioned and balanced accordingly

I haven't played Freelancer in ages, I'm freshly back into Discovery from all the way back in 2008-2011'ish, and I mostly played other mods back in the day. However, in the mods that I frequently played (one of which I helped develop), capital ships were handled very, very differently and I think Discovery could use a general rework to how capital ships function and fly.

I doubt anything I have to say will change anyone's minds as I'm seeing a great deal of tribalism entrenchment within this community (as has always been the case) but I'll outline what I think the problem with Disco's approach is.

In a nutshell, I think Discovery suffers from treating its capital ships like oversized smallcraft. Primarily forward facing guns, some restricted arcs here and there, with slower fire rates and projectile speeds to balance out their loadouts against smallcraft, but ultimately just bulky smallcraft with restrictive turn rates. The problem with this is that it creates the aforementioned stale gameplay of "fly straight at enemy and hold right click". This is okay to have, to a degree, with smallcraft because the goal is to strike hard and fast and then quickly get away. Capital ships do not have this maneuverability nor should they have it. Discovery's attempts to change this do not actually change it, because you have positioned the weapon arcs all over the ship, making the gameplay loop the same - fly at enemy (to fire mortars, etc.), turn (maybe fire a few broadside shots), then kite and try to out-range as much as possible.

Previous mods I've played that handled capital ship combat very well - in my opinion - took heavy inspiration from real life naval warfare during the Age of Sail. Any capital ship above "gunboat" had heavy capital guns as their primary weapons, with sideways facing restricted turret arcs. This meant some cannons solely fired starboard, some solely fired port. Capital ships did not have access to missiles and torpedos, forward guns were limited to either "chaser" guns that could decimate shields, weapon power, or even disable cruise or - such as with the Liberty cruiser with the forward fun - single heavy weapons with niche use and limited other weapon slots to compensate.

What this lead to were capital ship engagements that forced capital ships to get in range and commit to the engagement, either for a slow "drive by" or a full-on slug fest. Capital ships should not, in general, be chasing or kiting. That is the role of smaller ships. Capital ships are a display of power and spectacle and I suspect most people that main them are looking to fulfil that feeling of power and spectacle. It's less about being overpowered and more a matter of feeling powerful, which isn't the same thing (or, at least, doesn't have to be).

In these mods, capital weapon slots were primarily composed of heavy cannons (side facing) with low fire rates, exceptionally high damage, and built-in "bloom" or "dispersion". These cannons were for use against other capitals, the dispersion making little to no difference against such large targets unless at long ranges (further reinforcing the gameplay of getting in range and committing) but making it so that these massive cannons couldn't one-shot a fighter or bomber (at least not without significant sustained fire in order to land a lucky shot). There were typically less than a handful of secondary slots for things like point defense weapons which focused on shield damage with high bloom/dispersion, to be used to deter fighters and bombers without giving capitals their own kill potential against small targets unless the pilot were extremely poorly skilled, or the fights were protracted and the smallcraft's health was already low. Forward and aft weapons were relegated to either niche weapons for specific ship types or utility weapons such as power/shield/cruise draining/disrupting cannons.

The weapons and their layouts forced capitals to commit to an engagement to provide support against other heavies, provide spectacle for the battle, provide a mobile base for re-arming of smallcraft, and provide the players that fly caps with a sense of power, versus a sense of "ace pilot skill". What capital ship mains want is usually vastly different to what smallcraft mains want and I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of the devs/playtesters are snub mains. The skill aspect for caps was balancing when to "full send" and slug it out, or seeing another capital focusing another target and coming in for an attack on their weak side, combined with subsystem targeting (the one mod I helped work on removed targetable equipment in favor of destructible ship sections, which both encouraged targeting specific areas of the ship to take out certain components, as well as provided a spectacle for the battle as the massive ships slowly wore away in a visceral, visual way).

Last but not least, the repair costs and buy-in costs for these ships were high. The buy-in cost is generally irrelevent as most people will build up enough credits in due time, but the high repair costs discouraged all ship types - especially capitals - from running from a fight. This is something I think is a big problem with Discovery because it leads to capital ship bloat amongst the player base that want to just take the biggest ship out against NPC's because the NPC's can't fight back against it and even if they sustain damage they just pop back at a starbase and repair their multi-million credit ship for a whopping 16k (this is literally the highest repair cost I've ever had).


TLDR: I think Discovery capitals need a complete rework, not just arc tweaks, slot tweaks, and number tweaks. Discovery's caps are designed like quirky, bulky smallcraft and this - more than anything - is what I believe to be the crux of the issue. But, I'm an old vet of different mods with my own feelings and biases. I urge everyone to remember that all they have are biases and opinions too regardless of whether you're a player or staff.