To build a ship right now, you need a few things.

 

1- The class of the ship. This determines almost EVERYTHING about the ship. There's a baseline pitch and yaw, a baseline hull, a baseline shield, a baseline damage reduction (0 for scouts, 5 for others) and a baseline evasion (10 for scouts, 0 for others). Baseline weapon and engine power are probably in here too, even though they are identical across all classes, and baseline engine consumption rate and speed are here as well.

 

2- The components, chosen from a list. This determines a lot of how the ship gets stuff done, but if a ship is OP because of components its almost because it has access to the "good" components.

 

 

Thus far, all the balance fixes have been component level fixes, and mostly talent point fixes at that. For instance, pretty clearly someone decided that shield piercing was too cheap, and EVERY shield pierce talent was reduced by about the same percentage relative to itself. That percent is about 20. If the integers would have it be more than 20, then it was left as less than 20 (going from 10 to 8 is a 20% nerf- going from 9 to 8 is only 11, but 9 to 7 would be 23, so it was left at 11). But the relative values of shield piercing on each component were about the same- no one thought to wonder if it was too high on clusters or too low on concussion, for instance.

 

 

So what we need is a component, maybe upgradeable or maybe just selectable (all unlocked) specific BY SHIP. Not BY CLASS and not just on a component that is shared amongst everyone.

 

This component would live under your secondaries. Call it "Ship Specific" and put it under your Reactor, Armor, etc, all those guys. It's own slot, not competing with anything. You would either have just one per ship, or you could have a small list, but all the ones would be specific to just that ship. You could, for instance, lower the base stats of the classes, and roll the bonuses into this secondary component, thus allowing you to customize without changing the powre- and the devs would finally have a dial.

 

Ex: Right now I think it's fair to say that the Starguard/Rycer/Enforcer/Gladiator is overall the weakest ship. Not only is the strike fighter role undercompensated in general, but these ships are built to rely on laser cannons with their perk being to swap between three very similar lasers and one ion choice that is generally a bit weaker than expected. Truly interesting selections, such as Burst Laser Cannon, are not on this list. So most folks who ask for buffs either ask for strike buffs or scout nerfs (both of these being generally reasonable requests), but the few who fly the Starguard tend to focus on ion cannon, as it is the only exclusive component. And it probably is a bit weaker than ideal- you would expect a shield-only gun to have a better range, for instance- but neither is it intended to be mandatory. Ideally, all four guns would be able to offer something interesting when selected. What no one can do is to make the Starguard and Rycer live up to their descriptions of being relatively MORE MANEUVERABLE.

 

 

 

How would this work? Well, when you pick your ship, towards the bottom under secondaries would be ship specific, which would have a bunch of things listed- an example might be +5% pitch, +5% yaw, +5% damage reduction. And the defaults could be things that have several small benefits. Maybe you could unlock more than one. Maybe you could upgrade them like secondaries, but that would play oddly with mastered components. If the ship was currently too strong, you could just nerf the base class and roll those perks back into the ship specific component. If it was underperforming, you could initially just have the ship specific component just make it a bit better.

 

 

This would give the devs a knob to tune such that each ship might actually behave differently and be balanced separately. This could allow the Novadive/Blackbolt to be buffed without also helping the Flashfire/Sting and without cascading effects of component nerfs (even though those aren't a bad idea in the case of burst laser cannon).

 

 

If the classes in this game were built like this, you'd be screaming bloody murder, and many would end up entirely abandoned. If you couldn't touch gunslinger dps without also changing scoundrel dps, for instance, what the heck? Yet that's the situation in GSF.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Verain

I disagree, because a class-specific component would become either useless or mandatory.

 

If it were powerful enough to turn a bad ship into a viable ship, no one would run anything else. If it were not, it would probably be weak enough that the conventional options are better.

 

The base stats of the ships should be changed. This allows for more build diversity.

 

(Also, unrelated, the Quell and Pike are the worst of the strikes, because non-cluster missiles are easy to evade and clusters are better on a scout.)

I disagree, because a class-specific component would become either useless or mandatory.

 

DUDE the whole POINT would be that it would be mandatory. Lemme edit my post because I'm sure someone else might be confused.

 

This would be a component, separate from the rest, under secondary. Maybe you'd spend req to unlock variants of it, but all variants would be specific to the ship. You wouldn't take it over existing components at all. It could offer the "edge" that each ship type is supposed to offer, independent from the class. The edge that is entirely missing on live!

 

The base stats of the ships should be changed. This allows for more build diversity.

 

This is a way to do that that is within reach of the player, and doesn't give you a confused muddle. Right now the base stats are by class. This keeps that design by moving the deltas between the ships in each class to a component you can see. Right now, those deltas are nonexistent, and if you change the base stats of the ship, then it becomes much harder to compare visually.

 

(Also, unrelated, the Quell and Pike are the worst of the strikes, because non-cluster missiles are easy to evade and clusters are better on a scout.)

 

I disagree with this sentiment completely. I didn't really think it was up for debate, and I suspect in general it is not- you can, of course, switch in and out of your clusters and to the other ones when they will actually hit, and threaten at many ranges. You certainly gain more by the ability to swap torps or concussions in that swapping in a mostly identical laser, and you generally gain more from the armor secondary component than the shield.

 

 

The other example is how superior the Flashfire is to the Novadive, or how generally inferior the Comet Breaker is, lacking all the potent primary components. But in that case, you can maybe blame the components, of which the Flashfire has a superior choice of in every slot, and even a better secondary setup, having both armor and reactor instead of the generally less useful sensor component.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Verain

I main a Star Strikefighter, and I have to say, Ion is completely useless next to Heavies.

Heavies have all the range and can eat a ship up much better than closing to 4000 and popping Ions then swapping.

Seems a little strange indeed...

 

I would think Ions were born to be long range, because as is, the 4000 makes them pretty much useless.

First of all related to the post: I'm not really sure there's any way to really implement that with either the change to be so small as to be unnoticable, or to some degree that there is no other option but to select a specific loadout, which defeats the purpose of the idea.

 

 

As to ions? Yeah, they could use something. But very useful if you aren't using a strike as an assault platform. It makes the perfect dedicated wingman. Chew off opponent shields/engines/weapons and let the scouts and gunships flatten them. Use missile locks not necessarily to hit an opponent but make them bug out of a fight or freak out and possibly hit something.

First of all related to the post: I'm not really sure there's any way to really implement that with either the change to be so small as to be unnoticable, or to some degree that there is no other option but to select a specific loadout, which defeats the purpose of the idea.

 

GODS why does no one get what I'm saying?

 

So you have like "Primary Weapon" "Secondary Weapon" (one other that also goes to 15k, like another secondary), Shield, Engine. Then you have your secondary components, which is four of the six: Reactor, Armor, Thruster, Sensor, Capacitor, Magazine.

 

NOW, UNDER ALL THAT put one component called "Starguard Engineering" or something. It's a different component. Lets assume it doesn't cost req, ok? And that it can't be upgraded. Maybe each ship has just 1 to pick from here, or maybe they have 2 or 3. THAT ability is like "+5% pitch +5% yaw +5% damage reduction +10% shields". Ok, get it now? This ability could be a buff to a weak ship. The point is that all the goodness and stats would no longer be in the base class, which could be weaker. If, say, the Pike, was absolutely perfect, then the base strike fighter stats, which would be less than on live, would be supplemented by the "Pike Engineering" which would give it exactly the same stats as live. But this would allow the devs to give us a good and readable way to have a Starguard turn better than a Pike (which is intended based on the descriptions), or the Novadive to ANYTHING better than the Sting. It wouldn't rely on components that are SHARED. So like, if a ship was too strong, but all the components are fine, then you'd be able to address that.

 

Ex: Pretend a Strike Fighter "Cheeseblaster" ships with the following primary components available: Burst Laser Cannon, Heavy Laser. And the following weapon as a second slot: Slug Railgun. And the following secondary components: Armor, Reactor, Capacitor, Thruster. Would this be better than the existing two? YOU BETCHA! But pretend that the "Cheeseblaster engineering" is +5% turning and +10% health, versus the Starguard who has +15% turning, +15% speed, +20% hull, +5% damage reduction, and +30% health. This isn't a Starguard buff- that ship ends up the same in this example. But now you could make a ship that has better components (maybe not THIS good) and not have to just have it be better.

 

 

Again, right now, every strike has the same base, every scout has the same base, and every gunship has the same base. Then you apply components. So if you have better components, you are a better ship. A ship-specific component could bring tuning.

I think we get it fine. It's just largely unnecessary or unnecessarily complicated.

 

The only ship class I think could really use this is the strike fighter. It suffers from RPG Main Character syndrome (Or The Mario, if you follow tvtropes at all). It's so average at everything it is good at nothing. So if it were a strike specific thing then maybe. Gunships and scouts already have their role and do well at them. Any adjustment to be made to them can already be done with alternate components or a different ship in their class. And it might make more sense to have good baseline stats and have offsetting penalty instead of just flat bonuses. For example +speed/-turning or the inverse. Or +shields/-hull as another option in the component tree.

 

A flat bonus, would be largely meaningless unless it is of significant magnitude.

 

As I mentioned earlier adding the component isn't going to help if: A) The bonuses are so small they are negligible or B) the bonuses are so necessary there's only a few rational possible choices at which point it may have well just been part of baseline stats to begin with

 

Introduce the component as a method to insert specialization that doesn't exist, not to fix a something that is not yet broken.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Luneward

I think we get it fine. It's just largely unnecessary or unnecessarily complicated.

 

No, I'm fairly certain you don't.

 

The only ship class I think could really use this is the strike fighter.

 

All classes need this. It would allow distinction between the component-rich Flashfire and the component-poor Novadive besides "the novadive sucks". If the devs wanted the Novadive to boost a bit faster than the Flashfire, they currently have no way of doing. This component would let that happen.

 

Buffing Strike Fighters wouldn't require this, interestingly. It's only useful for distinguishing between two things inside a class. They could change the strike fighter hull and shield value, for instance, to make them more or less tanky, but none of this buys you a distinction betwixt the Starguard and the Pike.

 

 

So if it were a strike specific thing then maybe.

 

No. That would not help. You don't seem to get this at all.

 

Forget about "specific loadouts" or trying to find a way to help strikes. They can do that however the heck they want, and don't need this for that. They could just boost the damned pitch and yaw on them and resolve many of the issues, for instance, or more reasonably, nerf some baseline scout components that every scout has, such that the effective HP on a scout would be lower.

 

And it might make more sense to have good baseline stats and have offsetting penalty instead of just flat bonuses. For example +speed/-turning or the inverse. Or +shields/-hull as another option in the component tree.

 

That last part has some merit, but I think it would make more sense to depress all the base classes and give it back in whole, in part, or in greater numbers than on live via these components.

 

You could also have a few different starguard components that would allow you to kind of choose a starguard with a different aim than another, just as the other components do. For instance, maybe your starguard could have a bit more hull, or another could have a small amount more shield. But that isn't really important- what we need is a knob that is PRE SHIP that can be turned if one ship ends up crappy compared to the rest of the class, or to make up for a very poor component set with no synergy.

 

B) the bonuses are so necessary there's only a few rational possible choices at which point it may have well just been part of baseline stats to begin with

 

The second thing is what I'm going for. The bonuses need to be signifigant, such that a different ship type could leave it off. For instance, assume that the Quarrel is about the correct maneuverability for a gunship, but the Comet Breaker is supposed to be spicier. This would allow for that. Remember, it's not about a choice- it's about having a ship specific dial. Right now they can tune components up or down, which affects EVERYONE WITH THAT COMPONENT. Or, they can tune the base stats up or down, which affects everyone in that CLASS.

 

 

Under the current system, how do you nerf the Flashfire? People are playing logical hopscotch. "Ok, we can nerf the burst laser cannons, those are too good." Sure, but what if there was another FAIR type of scout that used burst laser cannons but didn't have all the other junk that flashfires use? They would be collateral damage. This game eventually will have a bunch of scouts, a bunch of strikes, a bunch of gunships, and if the only thing that distinguishes them is which bucket of components they have, screw that. You need a SHIP SPECIFIC DIAL and a SHIP SPECIFIC COMPONENT gives you this.

 

Introduce the component as a method to insert specialization that doesn't exist, not to fix a problem that is not yet broken.

 

Pike > Starguard

Flashfire >> Novadive

Quarrel >>>>> Comet Breaker

 

We have this problem on live. This is the fix.

You still have not addressed WHY it needs to be done this way. I can't think of a single ship that can't shred a target with burst lasers at close range. So unless you're going to remove them completely from ships that are good at getting in close it doesn't change the fact it's a better idea to adjust the burst lasers. Shield piercing too strong accross the board? Then they adjusted it.

 

You point out that some ships in a class overclass the others. Yes, that's right. That's a problem with their component loadouts to begin with. The answer isn't to introduce a convoluted component that creates an entirely new ship 'spec' per ship. The answer is to more thoroughly try to balance component loadouts and get full feedback before launch. It isn't the Dustmaker's fault it is a crap gunship. It's the fault of the developers that it was introduced for a niche that doesn't practically exist, or one that can be fulfilled as well by a normal gunship or a missile boat strike.... In spite of me not seeing a single positive feedback on the thing before it was sent out.

 

The current system in spite of all the numbers involved is relatively elegant and simple when you get down to it. You're trying to solve a problem that could just as well be remedied by a better loadout design.

 

So tell me if you can WHY you need a convoluted solution for a problem that was created by already existing components. And I think you're focusing too much on straight up firefights without looking at the whole package. Is the flashfire better than a novadive in a dogfight? Almost certainly. The flashfire doesn't come with anywhere near the utility (sensor beacon, sensors) or debuffs the novadive can. In most games the flashfire comes out on top, but in team games the utility is hard to give up.

 

I just can't see how introducing a component to fix a problem created by already existing components will fix anything - and the more complicated something is, the more skilled players will just find a way to exploit it.

 

Edit: I suppose the better argument is: If we can't trust the developers to come up with intelligent component loadout design (such as not giving a bursty close range weapon to a ship that is good at getting in close and staying with their target, or not giving a high powered artillery platform near inexhaustible ways to escape their opponents) how can we trust them with making the correct buff options for these ship talent trees? And what about the new ships that come out? If the problem is already recognized, there really won't be any need for them to have the new component at all if the problems are already considered as part of the design.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Luneward

GODS why does no one get what I'm saying?

 

We get what you're saying. It's just that what you're saying is dumb, and you've yet to address any concern on that front.

There are many means to an end.

Sure, an addition to the loadout could do that, but since the real neglected child around here is the strike fighter, I would say just pump the range on the ions from 4000 to 7000 and give its light lasers the same upgrade tree as seen on the heavies.

 

Then it would play like I imagined it would, at least in my head anyways.

I see where you're coming from.

 

Right now, if a ship is over/underpowered, there's only two options - buff/nerf specific components, thus affecting all ships that have access to those components (a component that is OP on one ship might not be an issue on another), or buff/nerf the base stats, thus affecting all ships in that class. Both options are likely to impact ships that were not in need of balance adjustments. Having a dedicated component unique to each ship would make it easier to tweak each ship individually.

I see where you're coming from.

 

Right now, if a ship is over/underpowered, there's only two options - buff/nerf specific components, thus affecting all ships that have access to those components (a component that is OP on one ship might not be an issue on another), or buff/nerf the base stats, thus affecting all ships in that class. Both options are likely to impact ships that were not in need of balance adjustments. Having a dedicated component unique to each ship would make it easier to tweak each ship individually.

 

Except, currently, all balance issues either affect the class as a whole (strikes not having enough mobility or maneuverability, scouts having too much maneuverability and mobility) or weapons as a whole (burst lasers doing too much effective damage per second, railguns being absolutely stupid, lock-on weapons being very hard to actually get a lock with unless the lock on time is extremely short). There's currently no need to introduce any new knobs to tweak.

And my point in addition to that was that if we can't trust the devs to properly load them out to begin with, how do we trust them to make correct choices with a complicated tuning component? And even those are subjective. There are few 'wrong' ways to play the game, and everyone has different opinions about what is wrong with their ship and needs buffed.

I see where you're coming from.

 

Right now, if a ship is over/underpowered, there's only two options - buff/nerf specific components, thus affecting all ships that have access to those components (a component that is OP on one ship might not be an issue on another)

 

To be fair it's entirely possible that the reason it appears balanced on one ship but is unbalanced on another is because the ship(s) where it seems balanced are not designed in a way to be able to take maximum advantage of what is the problem. Or alternately while the buff is powerful it isn't affecting the ship in a way that isn't expected (armor making a tanky ship more tanky but not insanely more so for example). In either case even on the ships it appears balanced for it is probably giving more of a buff that is intended but, because the ship is still performing within what we expect, the imbalance isn't enough to set off the "This is OP!" light.

 

IMO if a component is too powerful on one ship odds are it is too powerful for others and in need of tweaking and the only reason it doesn't appear to be blatantly OP across the board is due to 1) the other ships lack the capabilities to make the most of that power (a natural outcome when you have things shared across classes that, in some cases, have dramatically different roles/play styles) or 2) it isn't dramatically boosting them beyond what we expect so they slip under the radar while we focus on the ships that are being boosted beyond what we'd expect.

 

Of course one possible alternate explanation might be that it appears OP on only one ship is because it shouldn't be usable by that ship type to begin with and needs to be removed.

 

As for the OP I think whether we "need" this depends greatly on how things are under the hood. It's entirely possible that they just copy + pasted the base stats but that the coding is already there to let them alter ship stats individually. But I do agree that the devs need to look into tweaking the stats of the various ship types so they can actually make the most of the components they're given.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

that said I DO think strikers could use an across the board manuverability and speed buff, not much but something

"You still have not addressed WHY it needs to be done this way."

Sure I did. Your options are: address it entirely in components (limits total number of ships, a component fair on ship A might get nerfed because it is too good on ship B), address it with a bunch of stats (solves the problem but there's no base stat display), have a ship specific component (clearly explains the differences between your ship and the class template, might even have a few tuning choices to choose from).

 

It doesn't NEED to be done this way, but this way involves little development, is plainly obvious, provides player choice, and provides the devs a good knob to turn.

 

"Except, currently, all balance issues either affect the class as a whole or weapons as a whole. There's currently no need to introduce any new knobs to tweak."

 

Wrong. You only think that because there are only six ships in the game right now. In fact, we already see balance issues between the novadive and the flashfire above and beyond the burst laser cannon issue, we already see balance problems with the pike and the starguard, and we already see very potent differences between the Quarrel and the Comet Breaker. All of these imbalances are in class imbalances. Do all protons need a buff because the Comet Breaker sucks?

 

And my point in addition to that was that if we can't trust the devs to properly load them out to begin with, how do we trust them to make correct choices with a complicated tuning component?

 

This gives them a small knob, AND adds flavor. It's win all around. The current approach is pretty blocky.

 

 

"I DO think strikers could use an across the board manuverability and speed buff"

Agreed as well, but this would be separate from that.

 

 

We get what you're saying. It's just that what you're saying is dumb, and you've yet to address any concern on that front.

 

Well, first, you don't. And second, it isn't. The idea of having a good knob that provides balance AND flavor is win from all directions.

 

 

Here's you not understanding:

"I disagree, because a class-specific component would become either useless or mandatory."

> This misses the point entirely- it would be entirely "mandatory", just as "primary weapon" is. You wouldn't pick it over existing components, such as "System", and it would prevent what we see a lot of around here "this component is specific to this ship type, so it needs to be good". Instead, you would have a non-component based perk.

 

"The base stats of the ships should be changed. This allows for more build diversity."

>This misses the point that the component would not only allow for customization- you could perhaps have more than one "Starguard Engineering" available- but would be the same as base stats, with the big exceptions of customization and of course, an obvious and clear source for the deviation from base.

 

 

 

So, you definitely didn't understand at all what was being said. But definitely be insulting, that always works.

 

 

 

" There's currently no need to introduce any new knobs to tweak."

 

Clearly this is inaccurate, given the imbalances inside base ship types. Under the current system, if you have a generally inferior set of components compared to another, there will be no reason to play that ship.

 

With a ship specific component, you could make a ship with very good and synergistic components, and a ship with much lighter or weaker (and interesting) components, but compensate the ship with the ship specific component. Without this, not only are the number of ships limited, but so is the devs ability to balance the ship.

 

 

 

Also that thing about the Pike being worse than the Starguard? That's hella wrong. You can and should absolutely be able to lock on with protons. Not in a turn fight solo, but in general. And the ability to switch between threat distances generally beats the Starguard's trick of switching between generally similar lasers (and the interesting but short range ion cannon).

My dual cannon Strike had really grown on me but it looks like I'm going dual missile. The Quell/Pike's versatility was already superior now with this missile option the choice is clear!

 

I'm going to wait until 2.6 so I don't waste req...but if this is the only change being implemented for Strikes....once 2.6 hits...as was said in a previous thread...its abandon my main ship!