So as I've been leveling up some new alts, I've come to realize that there is a HUGE power jump as soon as Slug and BLC get Armor Piercing. Prior to having it, they feel like well-balanced weapons, in line with their same-slot peers. Once they have it, they feel vastly more effective than anything else you could field.

This makes me wonder if perhaps you could solve a lot of balance problems simply by removing Armor Piercing from these two components--or by making their Armor Piercing upgrades less than 100%--like just 20% (previously I did not think any component had Partial Armor Piercing, but Plasma Railgun has 20% on its T4 upgrade).

This may have been proposed before, but I think it's fodder for reasonable conversation.

What if BLC and Slug both lost 100% Armor Piercing? What would the consequences be?

Here's my train of thought...

1. Turrets would be more formidable. A single Gunship or Scout couldn't rob a satellite of all three turrets in a few seconds. A Scout would need Rocket Pods and/or Directional Shields to take out turrets solo without taking hull damage.

2. Ships that can field HLC's would rise to be necessary parts of satellite assault--something I think was originally intended given many of those ships' descriptions. Note that this would result in a soft buff to the T2 Gunship vs. the T1 and T3.

3. Deflection Armor (and other sources of damage reduction) would become slightly more appealing for all ships--even those not using Charged Plating. Pilots could opt for DR as a defense to Slugs and BLC's instead of relying on Evasion.

4. A Quell or Imperium running Charged Plating would be more competitive in Deathmatch. Either could prove very disruptive against a formation of Gunships and/or Bombers, without being ridiculously easy prey for those Gunships (or Scouts).

5. Non-scouts, in general, become a bit more chewy food. Not enough to overturn the entire meta, but enough to mildly nerf all Scout burst damage.

6. Minelayers running Charged Plating would be very, very difficult to pry off nodes. Right now, once a CP Bomber is on a node, it's really only going to get killed by a self-sacrificing BLC Scout or multiple Gunships working together to bracket the Bomber. Plasma Railgun would become a slightly better option to use against CP Minelayers on a node, but probably not good enough.

Apart from #6, all of these seem like good things. Some underperforming ships get niche to fill. Some overperforming ships lose a little of their utility. A wider range of defensive choices become competitive.

Even a CP Minelayer in Deathmatch would be manageable, given enough ships flying around with HLC and Rocket Pods. The real trouble is CP Minelayer's on a node. They are already difficult to counter, even with Armor Piercing.

What do the rest of you think? Are any of my above assertions wrong? Am I failing to predict a major consequence?

BLC probably should never have had armour piercing. It doesn't need it to be good, and it doesn't even make sense conceptually.

Removing armour-piercing from Slug I'd be more iffy about. Gunships need some armour piercing option. Maybe if Plasma was made actually worthwhile for armour piercing. It would still be a sizeable nerf overall to gunships, but it would both nerf Slug and give Plasma a role, so two birds with one stone. That said, I'd rather any GS nerf hits Ion Railgun rather than Slug.

Wait...didn't you say you were done with these balance speculation threads?

1. Turrets would be more formidable. A single Gunship or Scout couldn't rob a satellite of all three turrets in a few seconds. A Scout would need Rocket Pods and/or Directional Shields to take out turrets solo without taking hull damage.

[/Quote]

 

Slightly. I've been spending a lot of time in stock and near stock T2 scouts this week, and I don't find it difficult, dangerous, or particularly slow to strip a sat of its turrets. It's not as easy mode as it is on a strike with mastered HLCs, but it's not some torturous ordeal either. The bonus time for defenders to respond is maybe 10 seconds.

 

 

2. Ships that can field HLC's would rise to be necessary parts of satellite assault--something I think was originally intended given many of those ships' descriptions. Note that this would result in a soft buff to the T2 Gunship vs. the T1 and T3.

 

Nope. Not at all. Not unless turrets get charged plating. Even flying against the 4 horsemen of Bastion GSF the additional time to take down turrets is unlikely to prevent most capture attempts that succeed in the game as live.

 

HLCs needed to kill bombers efficiently, yes, but not to kill turrets. Turrets are soft targets to raw DPS if you know how to reduce your incoming damage from them. LOS, targeting delay, and burst DPS can carry you through even without AP.

 

 

I'll also note that sneaky devious pilots will severely damage all three turrets, and then make a final pass to snuff them out if they want to do a surprise sat capture. Only helps if you're not showing up on enemy minimaps via comm chaining, but if the concern is turrets disappearing as a signal for reinforcements on the UI, you can do fast serial kills with stock RFLs with a bit of planning.

 

 

 

 

It would definitely make CP builds viable for ships other than counter-bomber minelayer builds, at least if you nerfed the armor pen by large chunks. Not sure what the proper value would be, but I'm guessing you'd need to dial it down to 67% or less. Might not want to drop it below 25% though.

 

Then buff the AP for plasma rails to at least 45%, and railgun choice might get more interesting.

I think you risk making CP a little too powerful.

I've long thought about a balance pass to armor pen specifically, and my thoughts are somewhat in line with yours, somewhat different.

In general, I'm fine with Slugs and BLCs having SOME armor pen, but I do not like the power level change that giving them 100% leaves us.

My take is a bit different. Effectively, I'd look to max out armor pen in the 35-50% range, reduce the armor on turrets (maybe even up the health on them a bit to compensate, but give the kiddies shooting RFLs a chance to kill them), and ding CP a good deal, so that maxing on it with crew and DA would bring you to something like 60%, or in lieu of that, increase the CD time. You can get I think something like 94% reduction on an Imperium and I believe Quell as well (maybe 89%?), and that effect is actually warping with regards to new players who do not have access to armor pen weapons.

If you hit someone 15 times with non-penetrating BLCs in 20-30s, they should die. You shouldn't see a continuous tick of "7" coming off a bomber when you've stripped the shields, forcing you to wait until CP goes off CD, at which point, you have 11s to kill them before CP is back up. And it's ridiculous knowing that as soon as you get that armor pen, you shoot that same bomber 5-6 times total (shields and health), and they are dead, and you have infinite window to do damage so long as you can keep said bomber in the crosshairs.

If you or I went into a match with 15 relatively new players, or maybe moderate players without armor penetration options, and we take a CP T3 Strike into that match, it is almost quite literally god mode. Things will not blow up as quickly as if we were in Scouts or Gunships, but you effectively cannot be killed sans pretty serious user error. Maybe if all 8 enemies are looking at no one but you, but... I just do not think that's good design. Putting a shark in the youth pool is a bad enough idea, but giving them access to effective immunity is just wrong.

And as you noted, a rooted T1 CP bomber in that environment becomes a major issue at satellites. I think the armor problem is more fundamental than just removing the 100% options from Slugs and BLCs. You've been flying a long time, and I know have several toons that fly, so you've made the grind before multiple times, and yet, even now, you notice a massive power boost as soon as you hit those options on 2 components.

Armor penetration is the only serious concession I give to the argument by some that req matters as much or more than the pilot in the cockpit. Almost every other option is a small edge sans Disto's break, but I think even that takes a back seat (like caboose of train back seat) to the importance of armor penetration. If the enemies have heavy armor, and you do not have access to armor pen, you practically need to be at high end vet to ace level in order to come out on top of a lot of those fights (Note - no component fixes someone flying in a straight line long enough to die to RFLs).

And you also note that the pervasiveness of armor pen in the meta means that outside of largely specialized builds (bombers and anti-bombers), Deflection Armor is effectively irrelevant. And I am exactly the type who would often rather stack reduction than roll the RNG dice where it's all or nothing.

I just feel like the levels of armor you can get to are truly punishing to newer players who won't even have access to armor penetration until T4 or T5 of I think every component that has penetration sans Slug rail (T3). The entire game right now teaches us that evasion is king until we're in a situation where it isn't, and then, it really, really, REALLY isn't.

Anyway, them's my pennies.

Wow, look, your nerfs both target gunships. Direly, in fact.

The proposed changes are trashcan for that reason. Gunships absolutely need armor penetration- even if no one else has it. Slug railgun should be the last weapon in the game to lose it. The game would be awful.

Burst laser cannon is the odd one out. Without its unusual ability to ignore armor, the meta would be a little different- notably, strikes would have a defensive option that works against scouts to a real degree, and scouts would be almost unable to hit bombers at all. That's a pretty bad nerf, but the meta wouldn't be destroyed.

The correct solution is pretty much what nyght said- you could reduce or eliminate armor pen if you changed charged plating and turrets, and this IS a big issue where requisition is too important.

I think the real thing is- gunships have an answer to armor, no answer to evasion, and an answer to large shields. Also, some shield piercing. The answer to armor is too good (for everyone), the lack of answer to evasion could be ok, and the answer to large shields is pretty reasonable. If plasma, slug, and ion each solved different problems it would likely be a better setup.

But to take armor pierce away in the hopes that heavy lasers would make strikes relevant? Screw that. I'm just so tired of proposals that delete the functioning ships in the hopes that the badly tuned strikes will somehow become relevant. Fix strikes first, then worry about that sort of thing.

Wow, look, your nerfs both target gunships. Direly, in fact.

 

The proposed changes are trashcan for that reason. Gunships absolutely need armor penetration- even if no one else has it. Slug railgun should be the last weapon in the game to lose it. The game would be awful.

 

Burst laser cannon is the odd one out. Without its unusual ability to ignore armor, the meta would be a little different- notably, strikes would have a defensive option that works against scouts to a real degree, and scouts would be almost unable to hit bombers at all. That's a pretty bad nerf, but the meta wouldn't be destroyed.

 

 

The correct solution is pretty much what nyght said- you could reduce or eliminate armor pen if you changed charged plating and turrets, and this IS a big issue where requisition is too important.

 

 

I think the real thing is- gunships have an answer to armor, no answer to evasion, and an answer to large shields. Also, some shield piercing. The answer to armor is too good (for everyone), the lack of answer to evasion could be ok, and the answer to large shields is pretty reasonable. If plasma, slug, and ion each solved different problems it would likely be a better setup.

 

 

But to take armor pierce away in the hopes that heavy lasers would make strikes relevant? Screw that. I'm just so tired of proposals that delete the functioning ships in the hopes that the badly tuned strikes will somehow become relevant. Fix strikes first, then worry about that sort of thing.

Jeez Verain, do we need the histrionics?

I'm not targeting anything. I fly all ships, and I want a healthy, balanced meta. But by no means does a Gunship or Scout need armor-piercing to fulfill its role, and the fact that AP is so easy for Scouts and Gunships to get (and apply) is part of the reason Strikes do not have an iconic capability.

Why does a Gunship need armor piercing? No one even threatens a Gunship except a Scout, and a Scout has no DR anyway. Slugs without armor piercing work just as well against Scouts as slugs with armor piercing do. Slugs without armor piercing are only somewhat less useful against non-CP Strikes and Bombers.

And, as many have suggested, you could make Plasma the anti-DR railgun if Gunships "must" have an anti-armor option (which I don't think they do need--range is their specialty).

Nowhere in all the fluff text of any of the Gunships does it imply they are meant to be siege weapons that destroy armored defenses such as turrets and Bombers. But because of their armor piercing and range, they absolutely are the best weapons to do so. The Slug railgun descriptive text doesn't even mention armor piercing--I suspect the dev who added the AP upgrade to Slugs did it on a whim, same as the one who gave it to BLC.

And as for BLC's ... I don't care what ship they are on. The component itself ispretty much indefensible. They are overpowered in every respect--their burst fire, shield piercing, inherent crit, and ridiculous ability to fight at high deflection already make them gods amongst insects. Using BLC's, whether on a Scout or a Gunship, is like playing the game on easy difficulty. They don't need armor piercing too, and even without it, stock BLC's on both my newb Quarrel and newb Flashfire WRECK Strikes.

Gunships should not be better under a satellite than a Strike under any circumstance, but they are by default purely because BLC's are ridiculously easy to use compared to every other weapon--even with the sluggish chassis a stock Gunship has.

So again, please explain to me how taking armor piercing off of these two weapons would be so "dire". I actually listed out consequences--you did not. You just jumped straight to Chicken Little.

You say:

The proposed changes are trashcan for that reason. Gunships absolutely need armor penetration- even if no one else has it. Slug railgun should be the last weapon in the game to lose it. The game would be awful.

without actually describing why you think this in any way. Why does a Gunship "absolutely need armor penetration"? Why?

My first instinct would be "Hard nerf to Mangrrel!" It is: it would have lots of trouble with heavily armored targets, and still have serious problems with highly evasive ones. It wouldn't be totally useless, but it would still have serious problems against certain striker and bomber builds.

There would still be effective counters to charged plating:

Protorps. Hard to hit anyone with, but if you see a striker or GS barrel roll, it's a big, screaming "Protorp me please!" sign-more so with charged plating, because it's much less mobile than one with quick-charge.

Thermites. Hard to hit with, but devastating. They leave a bomber open to slug rail in a teamwork environment.

Concs. Easier to hit with, less devastating than the other two.

HLC. Weak to useless against armor until tier 4.

Pods. It would help greatly to remove the target's shields first, but they're still nasty at tier 1.

Ion rail. What's 9999999999 effective hitpoints if you can't move or fire your weapons? Also, at tier 4, splash = dead mines. Side note: If we had a space-machinegun with an ammo pool instead of power draw on the T1 striker, it would make a very interesting build option, because ion rail wouldn't prevent this weapon from firing.

EMP. Disabled shield abilities = no charged plating active ability. You're still looking at 34/39% passive damage reduction, but no 94/99%.

without actually describing why you think this in any way. Why does a Gunship "absolutely need armor penetration"? Why?

Well, the obvious answer would be "to counter damage reduction".

I don't fundamentally disagree, but 15 km critical 1 (0.9)-shots should not be happening.

Following the logic of different speciality areas for different railguns, I think that, if Slugs need to lose something, it's shield piercing (there's still the Bypass skill, but that's a cooldown).

If you straight up took armor pen away from these weapons charged plating builds would become really powerful. Not only that but a ship like the Imperium/Clarion would be almost unkillable in the hands of a good pilot. Burst lasers and Slug are really the two big anti armor weapons in the game that can kill these.

However I've wanted to shift the armor penetration to different weapons, since these weapons are already really good at just plain killing people as well.

I'd like more support weapons in the game and armor penetration debuffs like thermite are a great way to do that.

What would do is take armor pen off of Burst lasers and Slug and put them on Rapid fire lasers and Plasma both as debuffs.

Plasma already has a 20% armor debuff so just ramp that up to 100% and it would create this great meta of railguns to choose from. What two do you pick?

As for Rapid fire lasers put a talent that give sit a stacking debuff on the target it shoots. I'm thinking something like 0.75-1% extra damage done and 5% armor penetration that stacks to 20 make it last something like 10 seconds and refresh on a hit. This would make Rapid fire lasers a great support weapon and since all the support ships have access to Rapids it would be perfect for those roles.

I don't usually post on this kind of stuff so I might be way off here. I don't usually do that theory craft changes thing much.

I'm not targeting anything.

The Type 1 Gunship has two armor ignoring options, and normally run both. You want to take them both away. That's pretty clearly targeting gunships.

No scout blasters EXCEPT blc can pierce armor. Hrm....

But by no means does a Gunship or Scout need armor-piercing to fulfill its role

Arguably the scout doesn't- if you assume his role is to dogfight a little and chase gunships. But it WOULD make scouts unable to hurt type 2 and type 3 strikes almost entirely- they would be essentially invincible. I don't think charged plating would even be remotely fair if you took away the easy access that almost all ships have to armor pen.

and the fact that AP is so easy for Scouts and Gunships to get (and apply) is part of the reason Strikes do not have an iconic capability

Why does a Gunship need armor piercing? No one even threatens a Gunship except a Scout,

Wait, the game is 1v1 now? That's the game?

Gunships provide objective and area support. If you could just *ignore that* by pressing charged plating, that's ludicrous. Gunships have to kill turrets, and bombers. That's why they need that. Their role isn't really "to kill scouts", is it? If that's the case, you'd expect them to have better stuff versus evasion. In fact, their role *is to kill things with armor*. Hence, they need armor pen.

And, as many have suggested, you could make Plasma the anti-DR railgun if Gunships "must" have an anti-armor option (which I don't think they do need--range is their specialty).

They do, and they trade a lot for range already. They need to be able to actually damage things from range.

The plasma thing is interesting. Drako had brought this up a bit ago in mumble. If plasma ignored armor and the dot turned it off (like thermite), then slug actually could lose the armor pen (in that world, you could give it some evasion pierce or bonus accuracy). That would give all the railguns some reason to exist, for sure.

Nowhere in all the fluff text of any of the Gunships does it imply they are meant to be siege weapons that destroy armored defenses such as turrets and Bombers.

You might take a hint from the fact that every gunship has at least two armor ignoring weapons, minimum, available, and the fact that this is what they've been from the start. Also note that slug gets the armor ignore with early entry, and with no choice- only rocket pods share this distinction. It's very clear that they are, in fact, meant to break hunkered down targets. That's 100% intended.

But because of their armor piercing and range, they absolutely are the best weapons to do so. The Slug railgun descriptive text doesn't even mention armor piercing--I suspect the dev who added the AP upgrade to Slugs did it on a whim

Given that a slug is exactly the kind of railgun that WOULD pierce armor (versus the energy weapons, which would not), I absolutely and completely doubt that. That and the fact that slug had armor piercing from the earliest data drops make its role clear.

Gunships should not be better under a satellite than a Strike under any circumstance

Any time you compare to a strike, the answer is, stop thinking strikes are normal. They are not. They are too weak. You need to increase their power, not go running around looking to nerf every build that competitive players play. You need more good builds, not to take away the few that actually work.

So again, please explain to me how taking armor piercing off of these two weapons would be so "dire".

Bombers would be unkillable. Strikes would be unkillable. You just want a world where a strike fighter can press two and enjoy 19 seconds of COMPLETE IMMUNITY to EVERYTHING in a gunship's arsenal. As long as they are smart enough to go line of sight or melee the gunship during the third of the time they can actually take damage, they'd be free to run around, only vulnerable to heavy lasers. That's really awful.

Bombers on a node would be unpeelable. In your world, I'd take a charged plating bomber and literally never die. Ever. It would be the last time I ever had to watch my ship explode, which is cool, but probably not worth the tradeoff.

Gunships aren't too good at hurting bombers. They are correct at hurting bombers. Strikes aren't the baseline. They are bad. Very, very, bad. That's the issue- your idea would trash the meta, and that's why. Nyght's idea with charged plating changing along with the way armor pen works is a good one. Rest assured, the fact that everyone uses armor penetrating weapons is not a statement that armor pen is too good- it's a statement that armor is too good to be left unchecked. The fact that it ENTIRELY IGNORES charged plating is unfortunate, because we don't see as many damage reduction builds as we would if the penalty was less boolean. But making it more boolean would be vastly worse.

Why does a Gunship "absolutely need armor penetration"? Why?

Good grief.

I guess this is really just another giant "I'm Nemarus, nerf gunships" thread. Whatever.

Will you quit with this crap? I am not some new pilot with a pet favorite shop and an agenda. What I am interested in is seeing more components be useful. Right now, the ubiquity of AP invalidates a large swath of component choices, and that sucks. If we make 100% AP less ubiquitous, it would be good.

Now why do I "target" BLC and Slug in this particular post? Because I have been leveling a fresh Quarrel and Flashfire lately, and I feel like the game is easy mode while doing so.

Stock BLC's destroy everything that doesn't have them, except CP Bombers.

Stock slugs still 2-shot standard Scout builds. AP is irrelevant there.

Stock Ion, followed by stock Slug, still cripples and then kills most Strikes.

The only targets against whom I actually feel mildly inconveniencd are turrets and Charged Plating Bombers. But even in those cases, my stock Quarrel can still play a powerful support role.

Sure, turrets take three slugs, but I can shoot them without them shooting me, and given time I will destroy them all. Defenders are forced to leave the sat to come chase me or otherwise risk the satellite entering a capturable state. Either way, I am applying pressure on the sat that will help my allies assault it.

In the case of Bombers (even with CP), I can bombard them with ions, dropping their shields and/or forcing them into one sector of the satellite. Either way, I make it easier for my allies with armor piercing to finish the Bombers off.

Even with stock railguns, I provide valuable support to my allies, and the only way I die for it is if enemies pull off the sat, in which case I am still providing support.

And once my Ion Railgun gets splash, I am a superb counter to mines, again paving the way for my allies to attack. I am fine with all of that!

But once I have AP myself, I really don't need allies anymore--certainly I don't need any Strikes or even Scouts. With a Quarrel or Flashfire, once I have AP, I can kill the turrets faster than anyone can react, boost in and BLC-melt any Bomber down myself. Will I take some mine damage? Sure. But as long as I fly competently, I will be profitable. I'll kill turrets and at least one defender before I die myself.

Once I am capping the sat, anything that comes to the sat without BLC's I will obliterate.

Now, for Charged Plating... In TDM, I do not think Charged Plating would be a big deal. Bombers and Strikes would still be shut down by Ion Railgun just as easily as they are today. They will still be vulnerable to torpedoes and Concussion Missiles and Pods.

In Domination, they will be too hard to peel off nodes. I agree with this. I already called it out as the major problem with this change is done alone. But that one problem can be solved a variety of ways. We could have more weapons with thermite-like effects. Charged Plating's magnitude or duration could be adjusted.

In short, all I meant to say in my OP is that this one change would have a lot of benefits happen automatically, and the only problem you need to solve is rebalancing CP.

Yeah, but the one bit I think is a little skewed in your analysis with the leveling is your own general skill.

For instance, for me, once I get my BLCs, Retro to T2, Light Armor, and arguably Disto (I usually wait for a while on that one. I feel it's more of a convenience on a scout), I start to feel right at home in a new Stingfire. I have to play slightly differently, because I'm still using TT and regen thrusters for a while, but aside from that, I can fly relatively close to full capacity. The only thing I really miss is the armor pen, which is an annoyance, but most times, it's just an annoyance.

I've got a few toons that have mastered gunners, and I'm serviceable in one at this point. Not great by any stretch, but I can shoot fairly straight, and in general know how to fly. Give me one with all the bells and whistles, and I can make things explode if largely left alone. I'm a bit better in the T3, because I can fight CQB, but I digress.

I created a Semirhage clone on JC a while back, and put only the Mangler and Jurg on her bar, because I was determined to learn how to fly them. Trying to get 3 shots on turrets while taking heat in one of those buckets isn't something I'm used to doing, and even with BLCs and such, it's not at all easy mode for me.

So long as I fly smart and don't overextend, the difference between me in a mastered T2 Scout and a 25%er is largely negligible outside of fringe scenarios and battles with top pilots. The difference for me in a mastered gunner and one at 25% is massive, and it stems largely from me being such a n00b in one.

Point being that I don't think it's quite fair for you to use yourself as the baseline. Trying to master a GS from the ground up was... humbling for me. I'm far from useless, but I'm also far from good. It gave me a bit of interesting perspective to in a way go back to the beginning, and for me, it very much is. I quite literally fly 75% or more of my matches in a Scout. I've not tallied in a while, but I'm sure I'm over 2000 games total now, and I don't have the 250 games in a GS achievement yet. 20-30 were in the double missile Jurg, so do they even really count?

FWIW, I also agree that from a flavor standpoint, the gunship is probably the most likely ship in the game to have a max armor pen weapon. The idea about about giving Plasma the armor pen is a pretty interesting one, though.

And don't get me wrong. I very much agree that the armor/armor pen dynamic is a problem. I just think it's more of a fundamental design flaw of the system.

I'm gonna come down and support Nemarus side of the debate here, but please keep in mind, I'm not a theory crafter these are just my opinions.

Currently, I can think of a handful of pilots who use Plasma railgun, and the reasons they use it are because they either want to be different or they think ion is unsporting or some other reason. They don't use plasma because it offers some amazing benefit or utility though. If plasma was given the AP that Slug has, and slug was appropriately compensated, I think that would definitely make for a much more interesting meta with railguns than the current one which is just ion/slug. Was in a fight last night against 6GS and 2 bombers, and from what I could tell of the railguns charging, only one guy had plasma on his GS, everyone else was ion/slug. Currently there's no valid reason to use plasma other than wanting to be different.

As for BLCs I fully support taking the armor pen away or reducing it. I get that GS need a defensive weapon but that defensive weapon really shouldn't give them an edge over a strike in a turning fight. I'd much rather see BLCs on a GS be used to "spook" someone coming at you; take down their shields and freak them out so they try and put some distance between you which you could then use to escape. And as for Stings losing their armor piercing laser so what? They still have rocket pods don't they? Yeah pods use ammo but so do protorps and thermites. And I realize that some of the really great pilots will probably run out of pods without dying, but in my experience, it doesn't really matter what those pilots are using as they could blow anything/everything up with rapids if they felt like.

And yes, if BLC and Slug lost their armor pen or had it reduced, I would also be fine with CP and armor being reworked for more balance.

I also think Drako's idea for Rapids would be pretty interesting to. Would give a reason to use that weapon other than just "infinite lasers!" which really isn't a good reason.

Anyways, these are just my opinions so take them with a grain of salt. Again, I'm not a mathematician or theory crafter, I haven't run any numbers or anything like that.

If BLC and Slug lost armor piercing, then my best guess on the 8 vs 8 domination meta is as follows:

1. Tensor crash, consider a s2e/booster laser pod scout or two at start for bomber intercept damage

2. Field 8 bombers, at least 4 with charged plating and beacon. Entertain niche use of one ship with ion rail, denon tensor if your team is on voice, or s2e scout for beacons if other team is not on voice.

For TDM, there would probably be more quads n pods scouts (with less to fear), constant ion rail from fewer gunships inside proportionally more bombers.

I think the bigger problem than armor penetration is that new ships (particularly in the hands of new players) are largely helpless against charged plating builds and even turrets. What experienced NovaBolt pilot does not get the armor penetration pod upgrade early in their build?

Why not nerf the damage reduction on turrets to bring other weapons in line? Are satellites too hard to hold onto now? More satellite turnover is more fun! (OK, opinion) All lasers could have 20% baseline armor penetration added to them. Maybe reduce the penetration on existing weapons to 80% to balance the effect on charged plating builds, nothing drastic.

Buffs to moderate/weak weapons will be largely unopposed by the community, less likely to throw the game out of balance and IMHO are more likely to bring the other ships into the meta than nerfs to the big three. We can see what needs nerfing after more ships get buffed into the meta.

I guess this is really just another giant "I'm Nemarus, nerf gunships" thread. Whatever.

Well, it's a, "Verain freaks out at any suggestion that might nerf gunships in any way," thread too.

Verain is correct that taking AP away from Slug and BLCs doesn't actually remedy the deficiencies found in strikes or in the T2 gunship. Mostly it makes CP better against BLC scouts. I don't worry too much about the resistance to Slug because anything running CP that isn't huddled under heavy cover is still going to get promptly demolished by Quads & Pods scouts or Ionned or Interdicted into uselessness by GSs. So CP is appreciably better than its current state, but probably not nearly as God-mode as some people are thinking.

As far as taking AP away from BLCs and Slug to make those weapons a bit more balanced, there is some merit to that position.

BLCs don't really need it, at least not at 100%. It's niche for them, and it comes in handy when doing things that in general the ships with BLCs would be better off doing with one of their other weapons or letting other ships do.

Slug railgun is arguably too good. As long as a gunship has Slug Railgun, it doesn't really matter what other weapons it does or doesn't have. That's a level of stand-alone performance that even BLCs on a battlescout can't match. It's not a, "kills armored targets," weapon so much as it is a, "kills everything on the map that can be killed," weapon.

I wouldn't advocate detuning Slug to the point where it needs to follow a shot from an Ion or Plasma railgun, but changing things so that anyone optimizing performance will badly want to debuff the target first would make the meta deeper than it currently is. Plasma would have to have a more Thermite-like effect and Ion Railgun would need a hefty dose of anti-evasion for that to balance well I think, and I'd rather have ignores evasion than adds accuracy, mostly out of sympathy for strikes trying to use tracking penalties in faint hope of making an Ion shot miss. Done well though, Slug would be the plain raw DPS railgun, and you'd combine it with Ion for scouts, gunships and shield based strikes or combine it with Plasma for Bombers, CP strikes, and turrets. The T3 GS would loose a lot of power against armored targets, but that's somewhat in keeping with being the dogfight GS.

That leaves the question of what you replace those upgrades with.

For Slug, I'd move the accuracy buff to the third tier where it probably ought to have been in the first place, and I'd replace it with a 5-10% range increase. The return of the stealth gunship, but in such a narrow range of employment that it becomes a very high skill option vs the generally useful power draw reduction.

For burst lasers you could replace the AP with rate of fire or range increase.

For slug, you could also switch the location of the armor piercing and reduced power draw talents. That way the GS has to choose between piercing and accuracy stat, and it's no longer a no-brainer. It has to choose between specialties, and we don't have any new talents to mess up.

The individual talents would become just a little stronger (a little extra sustained damage), but they wouldn't be the kills-everything they are now.

Lets see what this would do to the meta.

First we all know that it would be more difficult to kill CP Bombers. (it doesnt make strikes any better at killing then they already are, and heavy lasers have poor tracking and the P.trops long lock and reload make them largely inefficient at killing a good CP Bomber. )

Would it make Plasma Rail more prevelant for its 20% armor ignore.... maybe, but that would just make the Gunship using it more vulnerable to scouts, (something they are already more vulnerable to) so that would as Verain said be an effective Gunship nerf.

Scouts would likely almost all swap to Rocket pods instead of clusters so that kills one current viable build in the meta to make another build that is already in the Meta more powerful then it needs to be and another 2 builds massively weaker.

The T3 Gunship goes from a good Gunship alternative to one of the worst as it lacks both Plasma and heavies thus it lacks any means for armor piercing, thus its only advantage being able to fight targets that get on it is nullified if that target is a Strike (I guess that's a buff to strikes but not really)

Strikes with Charge plating only really include 2 strikes the Clarion and the Pike. Both of which have more problem killing them really staying alive, I feel. So it makes them more survivable, but still doesnt lead much to the ways of making them viable.

Some people think to compensate you need to have plasma rail get thermite debuff status. With that it makes it way to easy to kill CP targets as now just about everything has Armor Piecing again, even things like quads. Which becomes rediculous. So people again stop using CP which ends up making Plasma the worst choice so people go back to how it is, so a Couple use CHarge plating. So people now keep 2 Gunships on their bar. Instead of people using the T1 and T3, you have made it to where people either exclusively use the T1 (one normal one CC store) or the T1 and the T2. Ultimately though, I dont see this adding more options I see it adding less.

If you want to make strikes useful look at what THEIR problem is and what they are supposed to be.

Starguard "Rendili has been Rebulic Starfighters for centuries, and the FT-8 Star Guard is the companies latest achievement-- a complete redesign FT-5A Honor Guard model. The Star Guard two primary blasters and gains maneuverability over other strike-fighter class ships at the cost of defensive strength. The Star guard can support an array of laser and ion cannons that allow it to engage foes at multiple distances, but its lack of heavy ordnance makes it less effective against armored objectives. When it comes to dogfighting, however, there may be no finer ship in the galaxy.

As you can see here the T1 Strike has a very clear defined position on how its supposed to be. Its supposed to have good mobility compared to most strikes with slightly less defensive strength, but its intended role is to Dog fight (this to me means take on Strikes and Scouts). And is specifically noted as not having the heavy ordnance required for armored targets (to me the best way to describe that is bombers). Well what we have an issue with then is pretty simple. It doesnt turn fast enough and its accuracy is to bleh for it to properly fight scouts. If its intended for this role something that would go a long way is a passive accuracy increase to off set scout evasion, or better maneuverablity as that is litterally supposed to be one of its strengths. Its vulnerable to Gunships, but I feel it should be. The issue may very well be its TO vulnerable.

Pike

Well armed, well armored, and with speed and maneuverability pilots have come to expect from a strike fighter, the Rendili FT-6 Pike carries to sets of secondary weapons along with its primaries, allowing it (when properly equipped) to swap between ship-to-ship missiles and torpedoes mid-combat. This makes the Pike a versatile fighter, able to eliminate enemy ships and armored objectives in the same attack run. Some starfighter pilots are specialists, but Pike pilots are ready for anything.

By comparison to the T1 it should be slightly tougher, but not as adapted to dogfighting, but to compensate for its lack of dogfighting its heavy missiles and ability to swap them should allow them to much easier take out bombers and other slow moving targets.

If you go through each ship I feel I have gotten a bit of a taste of some things.

Scouts are meant to beat Gunships thanks to their Recon nature. They are SUPPOSED vulnerable to strikes though, but some of them are supposed to be able to deal good damage to bombers, but must be careful with their low defenses against bombers.

IE the meta is supposed to be something along the lines of (this changes as different ships within each class do seem to have different roles)

Strikes beat Scouts, and Beat or Tie Bombers (depends on strike and the set up) and Strikes lose to Gunships.

Scouts Beat Gunships, and beat or Tie Bombers (depends on Scout and set up.) and scouts lose to gunships

Gunships Beat Strikes, Beat or Tie Bombers (depends on the Gunship) and Gunships lose to Scouts

Bombers Beat or Tie just about everything. They are the support ship that, as far as I can tell, is supposed to require some one a bit more dedicated to heavy removal to beat. They have little in terms of "offense" but their defenses are strong that only select ships of each type can take them. Those ships of course sacrificing some of their primary strength to do so. (Strike that takes out bombers sacrifices some Dogfighting, Scout sacrifices some evasion and speed, Gunship sacrifices defensive capabilities). How to make such a thing a reality I dont know, but honestly Gunship Scout and bomber might not need any help, but Strikes assuredly do. They just dont have the offensive bite they need to be competitve.

For slug, you could also switch the location of the armor piercing and reduced power draw talents. That way the GS has to choose between piercing and accuracy stat, and it's no longer a no-brainer. It has to choose between specialties, and we don't have any new talents to mess up.

 

The individual talents would become just a little stronger (a little extra sustained damage), but they wouldn't be the kills-everything they are now.

That's an elegant solution, and I like it even better than the ideas I was throwing around.

They could just do what they do in the ground game and have varying amounts of armor pen available to most options, but not in large quantities.

So like instead of a few guns have 100% A-pen. You have most guns have some % A-pen. Some guns would have more than others.

This would also alleviate the problem of "if you run charged plating you are invincible against all these weapons, and a free kill against these other weapons." Which is really a dumb design decision.

The more I think about this, the more I hate the idea. It's really just a narrow attack at the top ships in the meta that are actually able to be offensive, and a very focused assault on the type 1 gunship. I think the idea where charged plating gets redesigned and strikes buffed and then we see how this looks is a good one, but removing armor pen from slug, or moving the talent, or any of the numerous gunship nerfs proposed, just aren't good at all- and it's also not very wise to remove it from burst. No, it shouldn't have ever had it, but that is what it is now. It's a huge part of why you take the gun.

IMO change would hurt meta, hurt everything, no gain.

I'm still not clear on why Burst needs the armor pen and how it's going to ruin anything to have it removed. I think I'd still like it to retain some to give turrets and bombers a run for their money (and scouts deserve to have some ability against such targets), but the 100% thing has never made any sense in GSF, particularly when armor pen is never 100% in the ground game. It's like they completely took a decent design philosophy in the same game (even if it's a different part) and got rid of it. And seriously, BLCs need a tweak down. Taking off some armor penetration isn't going to make them a weaker option for Guns, either, and scouts are still going to love them without it or with a weaker amount.

Personally, I'm fine with HLC and and Slug retaining higher or even 100% armor pen (than BLCs). They're slower firing and that's their clear role. Doing so would more greatly set up the role of strikes and gunships in the current meta. I also don't have an issue with Slugs being a hard counter to bombers or satellite turrets. They have a lot of advantage up close, and having that weaker range is a fine balancing point. Plasma needs some love, sure, but I'm not sure why it makes sense to do it at the expense of a logical design setup with Slugs already in place (for some armor pen).

No, it shouldn't have ever had it, but that is what it is now. It's a huge part of why you take the gun.

Ahahahahahahaha -- oh wait, you're serious?

You're telling me that if BLC didn't have AP, you would use something else? What? LLC's? Rapids? Honestly even taking Quads instead of BLC requires a ton of other preconditions to justify, and even then, at the end of the day you're going to have a hard time peeling a stock NovaDrive off a satellite, let alone anything heftier.

BLC require 2000 requisition to make your ship into a god amongst insects. They are the only weapon in the game where "point and shoot" actually works in a predictable, rational way. With stock BLC, you can casually destroy anyone who wanders in front of your ship.

Stock BLC are already OP compared to every other gun, because of their UNIQUE ability to hit reliably at high deflection, and their UNIQUE ability to deal out big damage in brief windows of opportunity. The fact that they can get even more accuracy, inherent crit and shield-piercing or armor piercing is all ridiculous gravy. You could take all of that away and still there would be no rational reason to use any other gun, especially in Domination.

Your responses, Verain, have lost serious credibility. Regardless of whether my original post is a good proposal (even though it was phrased as a "what if" open question in which I asked for challenges to my assertions), you are the only respondent who utterly failed to read, comprehend, and then form a thoughtful reply. All you could do is poutstomp, throw up straw men representing your sacred cows, and accuse me of "assaulting" them.

You are an emotional child, unworthy of the reasonable people you fly with and any past, grudging compliments I have given you. You are also the main reason why this forum is toxic and unwelcoming to new players. You act helpful in one breath, pointing them at Stasie's guide, but then attack anyone who asks even a hypothetical question for entertainment, because you assume everything is an "assault".

Your pathetic attitude even persists in Reddit, where you risk throwing every rare, positive post about GSF into an argument.

imo nothing should ever have 100% pen against anything.

Rock, paper, scissors makes for terrible PvP.