Discovery Matchmaker: How it works?

[Pepe]

1. I said 1000 times: Disco's not fair! There is no Matchmaker!

True? Well...

I've met more than 10 fair players in the meantime, all of them "crazy" and logging to weaker side in battles. I guess there is more than 20 of them in Disco. Some of them are real aces. They are our true and only Matchmaker. But, what happens when they log? We can't hit them, so we log solaris gunboats. We chase them with our capital ships. We rekt them with double GB missiles. So, they rage and leave. Some leave quietly. But, they leave anyway. Is that how we cherish fairplay? Is that how we say THANKS?


2. I'd like to propose a possible solution to that. Caps shouldn't be able to chase snubs, but to be better in holding the ground instead (like iRL). Feedback that "idea", please.

- BATTLESHIP class ... speed 60, reverse 30, no thrusters
- CRUISER class ......... speed 80, reverse 40, no thrusters
- GUNBOAT class ....... speed 100, reverse 50, no thrusters

This way I expect caps to be better in strategic role, one class covering the other, teamworking and defending from snubs well - instead of chasing them. Some later rebalancing of weapons, like turrets tracking speed, Nova range/tracking or GB missile damage/tracking might be needed - on players base request ofc. I find this proposition better than simply nerfing GBs and their turrets, as announced for next patch. I'm a bit sick of balancing GBs up and down for years now - with no effects.

Your thoughts, please?

---

[Unlucky_Soul]

I like your idea. Caps for me are like pieces/pawns in a chess map, making calculations and anticipating the enemy movement to win. But sadly this is gonna be really hard work to balance it.

IMO not worth the hassle.

But good Idea anyways. If you can make more elaborations on the other balance issues, i will definitely reconsider my stand.

BTW where would battle Cruisers fit in ? perhaps 70?

---

[evanz]

so in a scrap, there all classes of ships, big ass ones and the snubs, if the cap ships have there own battles whilst the snubs go off in different directions with there's, when that's over they turn on the GBS

GUNBOAT class ....... speed 100, reverse 50, no thrusters

NO, everyone knows that snubs will wreck a GB, with or without thrusters, so lets keep them with thrusters or increase damage range of the turrets

[jammi]

Except in the scenario you've outlined - caps interfering with 'aces' in an ongoing furball, these changes would make no difference. Their arrival would still force those 'aces' to flee the fight, breaking up the 'matchmaking' you mentioned. It's exactly the same result as before, except with the chance of a blue at the end of it being a minuscule chance smaller.

All you'd be doing is making battleships less fun to use (i.e. more tedious by making them even slower), and massively reducing cruisers' utility as an anti-battleship platform.

Removing thrusters from gunboats also strikes me as a bad decision, given that many of them (gunships in particular) are designed as anti-bomber/snub platforms. Poorly thought out idea that doesn't address the core issue the OP is concerned about.

@Evans - we playing on a different server? Gunboats are pretty amazing against snubs as it is. They definitely don't need more range or power in their turrets.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[Pepe]

IMO not worth the hassle.

IMO buffing/nerfing GBs in every patch is worse. We simply should give an option to separate caps and snubs in battles, until both finds it funny. GBs can follow snubs any time, but at the cost of leaving big clumsy caps uncovered. They will look really stupid.

If you can make more elaborations on the other balance issues.

Yes, I was thinking about giving bombers and light fighters more thrust speed But, it's NOT subject to this thread.

BTW where would battle Cruisers fit in ? perhaps 70?

I honestly have no idea how all would work. But devs could get interested eventually and test this model - one day. I'm sure they were thinking about no-thrusters solution, but didn't waste efforts to mention it. Battlecruisers should fly at 80 too imho, but compensate with size and less turning/acceleration. I saw many players never TS/Z with BCRs, btw.

everyone knows that snubs will wreck a GB, with or without thrusters

Check HERE, seems like devs are planning to nerf both GBs and their turrets, mate. I think my proposition offers GBs a chance to keep their agility and weaponry as they currently are. I'm trying to move GBs from chasing to covering role and keep their other stats.

[evanz]

"...........@Evans - we playing on a different server? Gunboats are pretty amazing against snubs as it is. They definitely don't need more range or power in their turrets......"

what i meant was, IF no thrusters as in OP post, THEN increase range and damage, otherwise keep the same

[Pepe]

Except in the scenario you've outlined - caps interfering with 'aces' in an ongoing furball, these changes would make no difference. Their arrival would still force those 'aces' to flee the fight, breaking up the 'matchmaking' you mentioned. It's exactly the same result as before, except with the chance of a blue at the end of it being a minuscule chance smaller.

All you'd be doing is making battleships less fun to use (i.e. more tedious by making them even slower), and massively reducing cruisers' utility as an anti-battleship platform.

Removing thrusters from gunboats also strikes me as a bad decision, given that many of them (gunships in particular) are designed as anti-bomber/snub platforms. Poorly thought out idea that doesn't address the core issue the OP is concerned about.

Please mate, call them fairplayers, not aces, or "aces". No skill is needed to be fair and help matchmaking. And not all aces are logging to weaker side, unfortunately. I'm actually trying to encourage more players to be part of fair Disco matches, no matter of skill.

Caps captains would have to learn cruising at speed 200 on EK for interfering, to be more effective. That's some skill. They would have to think in advance. Some would be forced to learn TS/Z. Did you notice how many chasers can't use TS/Z, specially GB captains? And if they don't do it right, furball will simply remove to another place and continue pewing. Not to mention BSs will be left alone, w/o GB cover, open to bombers attack.

Cruisers being anti-BS platform? Yes, mostly in Conn, 1 on 1. I failed to see fair BS vs. CR duel in space for a long time. There are more ships involved (most of the time) and with no-thrusters model you'd need 2 CRs for one BS, or even more. Idk about you, but I think it's more fair?

And finally, I do want to keep GBs as ultimate anti-bomber/snub platforms. I just don't find fair that platforms can actively chase snubs. Platforms should keep ground and cover something. Snubs must come to them.

[Corile]

Everything that's necessary is nerfing solaris, this is not rocket science.

---

Reflections on the Revolution in Gallia
Custodi // High City of Heraklion // The Cult of Archangels
Log Filter // Post Creator // Manhattan

[Haste]

Everything that's necessary is nerfing solaris, this is not rocket science.

17/04/2015 - Discovery 4.88.2 provisional

- Gunboat Turrets have been rebalanced.

[Pepe]

Solaris are weapons of terror, we all agree. But not more than snac. They both do the job they were designed for.

But bombers do their role. They attack. Why, oh why can't GBs do their role? Because of turrets that can hit snubs? What is GBs role in that case?

If rebalancing turrets will make GBs do their role, all fine. Just let Matchmaker works and all happy.

I hope rebalanced GBs will not follow what happened with rebalanced LFs. I miss them.

---