I am going to present its pros and cons, as well as a proposition. I warned about the rework in this thread.
A battleship can now mount full flaks, all of which will do damage. This means that a carrier can instakill an enemy bomber, as well as an allied one. A battleship can also mount a lot of flaks, but generally without the instakill ability due to their smaller number.
A battleship/carrier which has a lot of flaks mounted has very few or none secondary turrets mounted. Flak range is 1K, while snac range is 1.5K. This means that a flak battleship alone is almost completely defenseless against bombers. A battleship that is escorted by fighters is, in average, going to do the same damage the enemy bombers and to the allied fighters.
According to this, a battleship should balance its flak and secondary turret numbers. Secondaries are used as the main weapon by a lonely battleship, or for support of allied fighters. Flaks were used as a surprise for diving bombers (somewhat like razors) and for deflecting torpedoes. Now, when their damage per hit has been reduced, the latter usage of flaks has stayed, but the prior has been nerfed considerably. This is because a battleship now has to mount more flaks in order to inflict the same damage. At the same time, this reduces the number of mounted secondaries.
Most of us know how easy it used to be to bring down a battleship with bombers, and how much easier it is now. I propose that flak damage is reverted, but their energy usage increased from the previous sum in order to prevent their overuse.
As an alternative, the whole update can be retconned instead. I am sure that no one would like a fleet of LN carriers instakilling allied snubs en masse -- which they are now able to do, regardless of the flak damage nerf. I thank Sindroms and the devs for caring about balance, but I think that you should consult with Wesker, who is now a dev trainee as I know, before changing battleship balance.
Considering insta-ing a bomber is going to take up your entire core, I don't think this is going to be as problematic as you suggest. If anything, a range nerf may be in order.
This might be a bit off topic but a new thread just isn't needed. Will the damage reduction hinder the ability to deflect missiles or does the deflecting of missiles work in a different way?
(02-13-2016, 03:02 PM)Snoopy Wrote: This might be a bit off topic but a new thread just isn't needed. Will the damage reduction hinder the ability to deflect missiles or does the deflecting of missiles work in a different way?
It works better now, because the flaks do not detonate themselves. This isn't a damage thing, it's due to the fact that flaks now have more than 1 HP so all of them are hitting.
It's also worth noting that I capped flak hp at 30k instead of Sidroms' proposed 50k, which should make it difficult to fire more than 30k's damage worth of flaks without detonating the others.
(02-13-2016, 03:02 PM)Snoopy Wrote: This might be a bit off topic but a new thread just isn't needed. Will the damage reduction hinder the ability to deflect missiles or does the deflecting of missiles work in a different way?
I don't suppose so. Flaks create some sort of a physical field that pushes the missiles away.
(02-13-2016, 03:02 PM)Snoopy Wrote: This might be a bit off topic but a new thread just isn't needed. Will the damage reduction hinder the ability to deflect missiles or does the deflecting of missiles work in a different way?
As said in the OP, it is not their only use.
(02-13-2016, 02:58 PM)Haste Wrote: I'm fairly sure the rework was intended as a buff, but the "compensating nerfs" might have been too harsh.