Daegara Odenson
Dissident Aggressors
Mordus Angels
4
   |
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
Consider balancing the torpedo launchers / charges rather than nerfing the cloaking mechanic. Currently almost everybody uses m4 launchers and faction torps - why are there no more interesting options? T2 torps only have a small niche in extreme range engagements but the current bonuses to T2 torps could more interestingly become rebalanced into launcher attributes. Providing meaningful differentiation within a missle launcher class forces people to make more interesting trade-offs in charge selection for bombers, instead of the de facto standard. Further this could tie in well with the upcoming module tiericide project and provide a meaningful distinction between launcher meta levels beyond simple fitting requirements!
Missile DPS application is a complex and contentious topic; the below suggestion provides a logical and easy to understand addition which provides an alternative to a more comprehensive missile rework but still providing both a powerful balancing tool as well as a new set of meaningful choices to the player.
Consider this:
New attribute: Missile mass
Inversely impacts the speed/damage or range/damage balance by a set per tier, small, med, large etc. Smaller missiles should excel at hitting faster but with with lower damage and lower max range; but the comparably larger large missiles take appreciably longer to arrive (more mass therefore slower) and must make a range/speed/damage trade-off. That mass can either be dedicated to payload, speed or sacrificed for longer range.
Currently T2 missiles focus on a split between range, sig based damage application bonus and damage; by shifting this attribute to the launcher T2 missiles may then provide more meaningful choice to the player.
- Rapid - Fast moving, lower DPS - imagine more of the torpedo body is 75% fuel 25% payload (higher ROF?)
- Medial - Average speed (lower than current), average DPS ~ 50:50 range/speed (significantly lower stats than current)
- Destructive - Slow moving, higher DPS, greatly limited range
Combination of a scaling factor attribute such as missile mass in the launcher ensures that launcher types remain distinct but within a class a meaningful choice need be made as to the focus and play-style that is to be adopted. The potential for launcher class overlap is something to monitor but isn't of itself a bad thing. That way you will see everything from brawling high DPS hot drops to 100km torp broadsides from sniper bombers more frequently and would diversify rather than restrict gameplay choices!
The downside to re-adding proximity decloaking for cloaky ships
As it stands the changes provide meaningful game play to non-cloaky fleets but destroy an essential component of cloaky fleets - this need not be the case.
Everything seems fair except cloakies decloaking one-another. Consider this from a balance perspective, the role already requires extensive coordination and positional awareness to even be effective in combat, maintaining that means moving about and doing so in a group without inadvertently decloaking each other is nye-on impossible with even a single squad let alone a bomber wing. Decloaking out of position is death as it should be, the cloak is your 'tank' but this is not balancing, nor a nerf, this is legitimately class-breaking and seems incredibly short-sighted.
Eve is meant to be about risk vs reward. Trade offs. Tactical decisions. Cloakies decloaking each other removes the singular advantage they held making them significantly less useful in an engagement without adding anything meaningful to that play-style or the cloaking mechanic. Previously this behaviour was deemed a bug IIRC and returning to that behaviour rather than balancing or encouraging a more diverse means of play via constructive changes seems like a step backwards.
The role of the Cov Ops class of hulls is to facilitate surprise attacks, the decloaking change doesn't add risk to their use, it just renders them an near complete liability in anything but hot drops! Their effectiveness vs. battleship fleets needs balancing, few would argue with that, but this surely isn't the best way to do it. Rather than negatively impacting a much enjoyed play-style why not consider a more constructive change that deals with their imbalance without nerfing the enjoyment of using them into the ground?
Relative impact on legitimate vs isoboxed bombers
Comments about the validity of isoboxing aside, the changes as they stand are a nerf to human fleets which need to organise significantly more to prevent a friendly decloak whereas this limitation is quite easily side stepped by isoboxers. This then makes isoboxing bombers significantly more effective than human bombers and that is a worrying trend indeed. Other means of balancing bomber DPS as I have described would achieve the end goal without creating this situation and would seem to provide a much more elegant solution. |