There has been a lot of talk on how to address T2 scout dominance. One resounding factor that keeps being brought up is damage. The general consensus is that they do too much "burst" damage for what they are. There is some debate as to defensive abilities and other issues such as evasion but IMO we could address a big part of the problem with the Offensive Components (other stuff may not need to be touched if this is done well)

This is beneficial mainly due to the fact that the 2 Offensive components addressed here are specific to the scout, so no other ship has to be affected from these changes.

Lets start by looking at the two offensive components and the one crew ability that is most often used for any T2 Scout build:

When Coupled with:

Burst Laser: Increased Critical Hit Chance 5%, Critical Damage 50%

There is massive damage and crit potential. IMO this is fine though there should be some negative effect that goes along with the offensive "damage" components. Something that makes people think twice before using them (adding a level of tactical use) - (assuming the negative sufficiently decreases their burst damage potential)

My Suggestion:

Blaster Overcharge - On activation Weapon Power Regeneration is Decreased 14%, weapon efficiency is decreased 15%

(these numbers could be bumped up to decrease burst damage by reducing "potential damage" by reducing "potential shots".)

Why: This way it costs more to fire with the ability activated, also gives a reason to choose the +14% regeneration from the T4 upgrade. (Stands to reason that something called blaster overcharge would cost more per shot) - Also nullifies the crew engineering efficiency bonus for the duration.

After Blaster Overcharge duration is over it applies a debuff: locks out laser weapons for 3 seconds, stops weapon power regen for 3 seconds.

Why: This would make it so that scouts are vulnerable just after using the ability. If changed as such scouts would have to pick and choose when to use this more carefully, as they would be mostly dead offensively for a short time after.

(Space Saved for Targeting Telemetry Tweak - I need to eat breakfast)

This post is intended as a place to share your ideas, this is one "outside of the box" idea on how to balance TT and BO, I would enjoy to see your ideas as well and maybe together we can come up with something that will work.

Alternatively: I have also played with the idea of making it so that you can only have 1 offensive ability active at any time. Forcing people to split up concentrated fire and BO / TT use (this would reduce burst potential, without nerfing either ability - just a thought)

From a lore and engineering perspective reduced efficiency makes a lot of sense. From a curing type 2 scouts standpoint I'm not sure it would do much good.

The BLC scout build is all about intermittent high burst damage, as long as you can still pull off intermittent high levels of burst it doesn't matter all that much if it's inefficient compared to other choices. Also doesn't matter if bits of your ship get so hot that they glow red for a few seconds.

It's a matter of high damage per trigger pull, and needing to spend a very small proportion of time on target over the lead indicator.

I think what inefficiency would do is just incentivize slash and run tactics over turning fights a bit. It wouldn't change the, "zoom in and blow them up before they can blink," nature of type 2 scout engagements.

To change them to a more, "scouty," playstyle you need to get them in a place where speed and turning compose more of their offensive (and perhaps defensive) power. So for example, you don't do a head to head joust unless the opponent is already severely damaged because it would be suicidal. You go for a deflection shot or a tail chase.

Problem with that is that the GSF system is constructed in a way that makes a tail chase where you can sit there and blast away at a less maneuverable target extremely difficult to pull off.

In a sense scouts are given too much compensation in firepower and durability because GSF is set up in a way that makes it hard to extract the value that they should be getting from speed and maneuverability advantages.

I think the best first step is to remove armor penetration from BLCs.

The idea of a scout is that it is fast, maneuverable, and very effective against "light" targets. It should have a lot more difficulty dealing with "heavy" targets. Without armor penetration, battle scouts would be kings of scout dogfighting and still very, very good at killing gunships (even gunships that take deflection armor), but they would have a lot more difficulty dealing with turrets and high-armor strikes/bombers.

Now, some scouts use quads just as effectively as BLC, so you might wonder whether this fixes anything if everyone can just switch to quads. The answer is that without BLC armor pen in the meta, damage reduction becomes much more viable for everyone. As a result, quads will ALSO be weaker because more people will be using defensive statistics that are effective against them.

You may need to make some changes to cooldowns too, but this change alone would go a long way to fixing things. It's reasonable for scouts to do a lot of damage to targets that should be vulnerable to them. They should do much less damage to the targets that are supposed to be resistant to them.

I like Kuci's proposal. It makes a modest nerf to scout offensive power and makes both primary and secondary weapons choices more interesting. Quads vs BLCs becomes very competitive and for secondary weapons you have the spammy missile or the high skill armor piercing weapon.

Still might be a bit on the overly bursty side, but it'll take more skill to pull it off and mild nerfs that create more interesting choices in build and gameplay options is definitely the way to go about fixing overpowered game elements.

I envision the proper game balance as being something like this:

Your team needs bombers to deny/defend space and provide support abilities (healing drone, hyper beacon).

Your team needs strike fighters to intercept enemy bombers, attack hard targets like turrets, and in general provide a mobile mid-range heavy weapons platform that can dogfight competently.

Your team needs scouts to out-dogfight strike fighters, penetrate enemy lines to attack their vulnerable artillery (gunships), and provide extremely mobile general support (e.g. fastest ship at reinforcing a position across the map).

Your team needs gunships to provide a (comparatively) immobile long-range heavy weapons platform that, like, bombers, serves to deny space but, unlike bombers, denies space far away rather than the space right next to it. This gives it a somewhat more offensive character than bombers, and a particularly strong application of this role is in attacking bombers.

The problem is not just that battle scouts are too good at their job; it's that battle scouts aren't weak enough at the other jobs.

Note that the above is mostly thinking of domination. TDM is a very different animal that in some senses is fundamental broken. Terrain matters very little in TDM, and so controlling space has very little value - unless you put a gunship in that space, at which point you have two ships almost completely covering for each other's weaknesses without any need for the other two ship classes. This can't happen in domination because of the node's LOS, which makes gunships dislike actually being on the node.

I agree with a lot of your basic assertions, but...

keeps being brought up is damage.

they do too much damage for what they are.

Too much burst damage. Other ships are capable of putting up big numbers over extended periods of time. See:

CF: 6 seconds

Blaster Overcharge: 8 seconds

Targeting Telemetry: 15 seconds

 

When coupled with just about anything, but BLC/Quads/Pods are the big ones right now.

Fixed. And fixes shouldn't target one of these weapon components and avoid the others, which is why we're speaking about touching TT/BO, right?

There is massive damage and crit potential. IMO this is fine

So you're OK with Bypass > Slug, Slug Railgun crit one-shots on scouts, Seismic/Interdiction one-shots on scouts, and other forms of ridiculous burst damage that prevent enemies from being able to react or play the game? Being able to pop 1 or 2 buttons and instantly win is what I find needs balance, nothing else (that's relevant to the thread).

Blaster Overcharge - On activation Weapon Power Regeneration is Decreased 14%, weapon efficiency is decreased 15%

This leaves burst damage the way it is, which is what should be fixed. Also, lock out players after BO is over? You've already killed them, what difference does that make?

(Space Saved for Targeting Telemetry Tweak - I need to eat breakfast)

Hopefully it's brain food (not meant to be an insult, just being silly ) - address burst potential here. I can come up with some solutions but they're mostly just changes turning these abilities from direct damage buffs to utility (Booster Recharge, Sensor Beacon, etc.). In a world without TT/BO, scouts would still be short-range kings, speedy support and superior dogfighters.

For one thing, I didn't mention other ship components since this is directly about T2 Scout Offensive abilties hehe. I am not okay with Interdiction one shooting scouts (but this is being adressed in 2.9), I am however okay with bypass + slug (bypass was already toned down, if it needs further tweaks it will have to be with slug.)

And yes when I say too much damage I mean too much burst damage (ill have to fix that in the op)

(I listed the stats on the offensive abilities, burst laser, and CF so that we know what we are working with)

And no my suggested changes would not affect the burst potential of the setup, but it would make shooting more costly (you will get less shots off) and it FORCES players to kill within 9 seconds (which gives a chance to the victim to avoid / flee) after this time the scout would be vulnerable giving victims additional time to react.

Whether this affects burst or not is likely a function of how inefficient they are. If its 25 or 35% less efficient and each shot does lots of damage, but your limited in how many you can take.. does it not affect burs tthen (this is a jump off point idea)

(this change is less about directly reducing burst and more about making BO more costly, indirectly affecting the amount of shots you can take thus affecting damage on a whole)

This is also an attempt at fixing scouts in the offensive abilities (BO, TT) without doing too much to lasers or defensive abilities. Like I said, there is an opportunity with these to affect ONLY the scout without touching anything else =)

I am honestly fine with scouts getting "damage buffs" , this is a well established concept. I do however think that there needs to be tuning done and this is just one "outside of the box" suggestion at fixing it. I wanted this to be a grand sharing of ideas and perhaps if this gets us thinking then maybe something will come of it.

(I had an idea for TT but it needs work, we could especially use suggestions for that. I thought about a 20% evasion debuff for 3 seconds afterward and some increase in cost of use (but this doesn't really fit)

*EDIT*

How about something simple like: You can only use one offensive ability at a time, making it so that you cannot use crew abilities at the same time as offensive components IE bypass and CF - this would reduce burst potential, not much but some (it would at least keep people from stacking offensive buffs to be uber killers)

*2nd EDIT* - While I appreciate suggestions that don't involve "offensive component abilities" this is not what the thread is about. This is purely about addressing battlescout dominance through offensive component ability tuning.

because its not a scout smorgasbord about how to address the issue from weapons / missiles / defensive etc. This is just about the offensive component abilities, which contribute in large part to the burstiness of the scout (which is the problem right?)

IMO scouts should be bursty and evasive, its just how much so.

I think the best first step is to remove armor penetration from BLCs.

 

The idea of a scout is that it is fast, maneuverable, and very effective against "light" targets. It should have a lot more difficulty dealing with "heavy" targets.

But it also makes sense for a weapon which have more concentrated and powerful shots to be able to deal with heavy armors and/or to partly bypass shields... Which BLC is.

IMO, armor pen is the least problematic part of BLC. As an argument, I'd like to point how they are shredding every ship, not only the armored ones. However, I'd also say they probably shouldn't be able to stack both armor pen and 16% increased hull damage. Not that many people use that combination, but still...

Seriously, I think the problem is rather than when entering its efficient range, which let's admit it isn't that hard, it packs the best accuracy, best tracking penalties, best burstiness, best firing arc, and almost best DPS.

I think that if a weapon is meant to be that good in turning wars and opportunity shots, then it just shouldn't be able to compete in head-on fights and/or fights that imply long firing time.

Basically, I think that the shotgun like damage profile is just not fitting and healthy for a weapon with such properties in a game like GSF.

<pessimism>

Do you realize that while you craft perfect solutions for stuff, devs will either do nothing (because GSF is in healthy state and they are happy with it), or they will come and make some total DERP.

</pessimism>

I don't really have anything to say to the topic... I am just getting fed up with these things being able to kill me in a blink if I am not fast enough no matter what I fly, and escaping them is a real pain. I will gladly take loss against great pilots in their Rycers, Quells and Blackbolts, but there are always several Stings with these huge cannons chalking one kill after another.

However, redesigning components probably wouldn't be the best way to deal with stuff. Nerfing BLC's would also harm gunships--- wait, that's actually good, too. But they would cry a lot.

But nerfing TT would hurt T1 scouts, which, IMO, require much more skill to utilize their burst.

Nerfing Blaster Overcharge would barely solve the problem, since from my experience, most of them use TT anyways.

Nerfing their DF would also harm other class pilots who have lost their dignity. (I think gunships and T1 scouts can equip that thing)

What could help in my opinion, are tweaks of T2 scout itself.

- Remove BLC's from that ship. They would still be different from other ships. More armed than T1 scout, faster than fighters.

- Make boosting more expensive for them, or reduce their speed or maneuvering slightly. So it is possible to escape or outmaneuver them, which would increase skill requirement for landing these insane bursts, adding the neccessity of element of surprise.

- Or even reclassify them as fighters, and replace the free scout spot with T1 or T3 fighter. Being fighters would give them these mobility debuffs while actually justifying their damage output. T1 fighter doesn't have any defensive minor components and with even more reduced toughness and increased mobility I think they would fit the scout role well. T3 fighter on the other hand has scout signature minor, sensors, and isn't a beacon of offense, which fits for a scout. Would be kinda tanky for a scout though.

<pessimism>

Not like they are gonna do anything good. This will be a thread #84354 about the hot topic that heated the community, but let the devs perfectly cool.

</pessimism>

unfortunately I agree, and while I spent my time this morning posting and theory crafting look where it got me. My son and wife get home from school and work respectively in 10 minutes and all I accomplished was to kill my game time for the day. .I need to re-evaluate this whole forums thing, I can spend a lot of time here spraying ideas on the wall the no one cares about or agrees with. Time I learned my lesson I think =/ *logs into game for what little time he can get now*

what a waste of time it is (90% of the time, im proud of the new player stuff but otherwise meh)

unfortunately I agree, and while I spent my time this morning posting and theory crafting look where it got me. My son and wife get home from school and work respectively in 10 minutes and all I accomplished was to kill my game time for the day. .I need to re-evaluate this whole forums thing, I can spend a lot of time here spraying ideas on the wall the no one cares about or agrees with. Time I learned my lesson I think =/ *logs into game for what little time he can get now*

 

what a waste of time it is (90% of the time, im proud of the new player stuff but otherwise meh)

I appreciate you doing it. There's always debate on the forums, and if you like discussing, that's part of the fun. It's good to have thoughtful posters, so keep it up.

Personally, I think reducing the crit chance and crit damage on these would be the way to go. All the related weapons have their own crit boosts, so these offensive powers exacerbate that issue. If you reduced those (or took some out, even), they'd still be quite nice to use and then the devs wouldn't have to worry about how they stack with separate weapon components.

After having flown a Flashfire and a Sting, I can comfortably say that the BLC really is a bit overpowered.

I think if damage were taken down by 20% it'd be all right though. It's really only that overpowered up close anyway. -bp

After having flown a Flashfire and a Sting, I can comfortably say that the BLC really is a bit overpowered.

 

I think if damage were taken down by 20% it'd be all right though. It's really only that overpowered up close anyway. -bp

at -20% it would only be superior to anything at <500m, beyond that and it would be inferior to everything, and <500m is not even remotely practical for the majority of situations.

But it also makes sense for a weapon which have more concentrated and powerful shots to be able to deal with heavy armors and/or to partly bypass shields... Which BLC is.

While in theory that's good I think in practice it's bad. In 2.5 battlescouts were able to use BLC to shred turrets just as efficiently or more efficiently than a striker which led to the assertion by some scout pilots that taking on armored targets was the scouts, not strikers job. I think bombers are the only reason battlescouts still don't outclass strikers in the armored attack role.

Mainly I think the problem with BLCs having armor penetration is that it gives them utility to attack armored targets without making them sacrifice any dogfighting utility. In essence giving multirole versatility to a craft that's supposed to be a specialist not multirole platform. Losing the armor penetration would force a scout to choose between being dominant as a dogfighter with BLC/clusters or having some armor busting capabilities with rocket pods at the cost of not being as good a dogfighter. It wouldn't eliminate their ability to be good at other jobs but it would eliminate their ability to have a offensive combo that makes them the best at the job of interceptor without coming at the cost of significantly inferior capability against armored targets.

I think Kuci is right in that the problem with battlescouts is that they aren't weak enough at the other jobs.

While in theory that's good I think in practice it's bad. In 2.5 battlescouts were able to use BLC to shred turrets just as efficiently or more efficiently than a striker which led to the assertion by some scout pilots that taking on armored targets was the scouts, not strikers job. I think bombers are the only reason battlescouts still don't outclass strikers in the armored attack role.

 

Mainly I think the problem with BLCs having armor penetration is that it gives them utility to attack armored targets without making them sacrifice any dogfighting utility. In essence giving multirole versatility to a craft that's supposed to be a specialist not multirole platform. Losing the armor penetration would force a scout to choose between being dominant as a dogfighter with BLC/clusters or having some armor busting capabilities with rocket pods at the cost of not being as good a dogfighter. It wouldn't eliminate their ability to be good at other jobs but it would eliminate their ability to have a offensive combo that makes them the best at the job of interceptor without coming at the cost of significantly inferior capability against armored targets.

 

I think Kuci is right in that the problem with battlescouts is that they aren't weak enough at the other jobs.

I think that following this path is going astray with the initial objective.

Removing the ability to deal with turrets is one thing... But isn't the main reason of this discussion the fact it obliterates with much more ease than every other cannons about every ships, which mainly have little to no armor ?

Removing amror pen doesn't solve anything when the victims have almost inexistant armor. That's why it is unimportant and misleading.

In addition I'd really like that much for BLC to be balanced for what it is : a weapon. As such, it can potentially be installed on every ship category. At the moment it's not, but maybe one day we'll see a strike with them for example. So if we try to balance it with scouts in mind, the risk is that the weapon may be useless on every actual and future non Scout ship that have access to them.

I find it dommageable trying to balance it according to a particular ship.

Side Note : I also think that turrets suffer from design issues that they need to be changed... I am even tempted to think we shouldn't have them anymore.

at -20% it would only be superior to anything at <500m, beyond that and it would be inferior to everything, and <500m is not even remotely practical for the majority of situations.

I thought you flew one of these things!

First: According to Dulfy, those things hit for around 933 or so at 500m. Combine that with Blaster Overcharge and maxed-out plasma rocket pods, and it's absolutely no surprise cattlescout pilots like Scrab get the kills they do. (Piloting skill does help, but I can tell you from personal experience that it's not strictly necessary to have.)

Second: The BLC is clearly meant to fill a combat shotgun role. If you want effectiveness at range with a firearm, selecting a shotgun is probably not going to get you there as fast as a rifle would. So, the BLC really isn't supposed to be that effective at range.

Third: Fighting at within 1000m is kinda the cattlescout's bread and butter. I don't know how you fly yours, but without exception, every competent cattlescout pilot on the Ebon Hawk is a close-range blast-and-bolt fighter.

Finally, the BLC is ALREADY inferior to all of its competing loadout options beyond 500m (and STILL inferior to LLC within 500m). So there won't be any change. The situation you describe is already reality.

From what I can see, it's either nerf BLC's damage or take away Blaster Overcharge, which makes an already-overpowered situation lethal in short order. I don't think BO is working as intended, because it seems to also have a boosting effect to SECONDARY weapons like cluster missiles.

But I could see just reducing BLC's damage by 10% if its ridiculous 115% aim at close range were looked at. I mean, I get what they're thinking ("it must be accurate at close range because shotgun!"), but anyone who's ever trained with a combat shotgun will tell you lethality at close range comes from having A) heavy shot and B) aiming squarely at center mass. Even being a little off to the side can mean the difference between wounded attacker and corpse.

So, there's the supporting evidence. -bp

Combine that with Blaster Overcharge and maxed-out plasma rocket pods, and it's absolutely no surprise cattlescout pilots like Scrab get the kills they do.

Scrab fly with Quads and increased Range Pods.

I think that following this path is going astray with the initial objective.

Removing the ability to deal with turrets is one thing... But isn't the main reason of this discussion the fact it obliterates with much more ease than every other cannons about every ships, which mainly have little to no armor ?

Removing amror pen doesn't solve anything when the victims have almost inexistant armor. That's why it is unimportant and misleading.

 

In addition I'd really like that much for BLC to be balanced for what it is : a weapon. As such, it can potentially be installed on every ship category. At the moment it's not, but maybe one day we'll see a strike with them for example. So if we try to balance it with scouts in mind, the risk is that the weapon may be useless on every actual and future non Scout ship that have access to them.

 

I find it dommageable trying to balance it according to a particular ship.

 

Side Note : I also think that turrets suffer from design issues that they need to be changed... I am even tempted to think we shouldn't have them anymore.

Fair enough. Doesn't change my point that battlescouts can choose the best offensive loadout for dogfighting without any cost to their performance in ability to kill armored targets. Where's the logic in allowing a scout, a ship that's supposed to specialize in a particular type of combat, to have multirole versatility that doesn't come at the price of losing some of the specialization capability?

It might not solve BLCs themselves but it might help with the battlescout's offensive if they had to choose between cluster missiles for optimal dogfighting against minimally armored targets or rocket pods for some capability against armored targets.

Scrab fly with Quads and increased Range Pods.

He's changed his loadout, then. It used to be BLC. But with Scrab, it generally doesn't matter. He can fly with a broken slingshot and still get 15 kills. -bp

I think a good step would be to remember T2 scouts are paper thin, and that when pilots around it's target are paying attention they are neutralized rather quickly almost always.

Maybe on your server, but not on the Hawk - hell, I can fly one of those things and survive for quite a bit thanks to evasion and Power Dive. -bp

First: According to Dulfy, those things hit for around 933 or so at 500m. Combine that with Blaster Overcharge and maxed-out plasma rocket pods, and it's absolutely no surprise cattlescout pilots like Scrab get the kills they do. (Piloting skill does help, but I can tell you from personal experience that it's not strictly necessary to have.)

No sh*t its insansely good with offensive cooldowns, me and several other posters have already stated that the issue with cattlescout's potency is directly linked to the available offensive cooldowns, not with the primaries themselves.

Second: The BLC is clearly meant to fill a combat shotgun role. If you want effectiveness at range with a firearm, selecting a shotgun is probably not going to get you there as fast as a rifle would. So, the BLC really isn't supposed to be that effective at range.

No sh*t again.

Third: Fighting at within 1000m is kinda the cattlescout's bread and butter. I don't know how you fly yours, but without exception, every competent cattlescout pilot on the Ebon Hawk is a close-range blast-and-bolt fighter.

Ok lesion on shooting since you really don't have a clue. When tracking a moving target, it becomes more difficult to hit the closer the target is, because you have to turn faster in order to track smaller movements. At longer ranges such a 5k a target that moves around 1k laterally, is about a inch movement across my screen, at <500m a 1k movement puts the target completely off of my screen. The reaction time required to track an opponent who is trying to evade or hell moving at all isn't humanly possible at <500m. The only time targets are hit at <500m are on very lucky shots or on extremely slow targets like bombers, stationary and oblivious gunships, and targets flying in a straight line.

Finally, the BLC is ALREADY inferior to all of its competing loadout options beyond 500m (and STILL inferior to LLC within 500m). So there won't be any change. The situation you describe is already reality.

But I could see just reducing BLC's damage by 10% if its ridiculous 115% aim at close range were looked at. I mean, I get what they're thinking ("it must be accurate at close range because shotgun!"), but anyone who's ever trained with a combat shotgun will tell you lethality at close range comes from having A) heavy shot and B) aiming squarely at center mass. Even being a little off to the side can mean the difference between wounded attacker and corpse.

ok so you want to make it so a weapon that is only effective at close ranges, unable to hit things at close ranges. GENIUS

No sh*t its insansely good with offensive cooldowns, me and several other posters have already stated that the issue with cattlescout's potency is directly linked to the available offensive cooldowns, not with the primaries themselves.

Except there are all these niggling details that don't support that conclusion.

For example:

Is the problem just BO? It can't be, because lots of people use TT.

Then, is it that both BO and TT are overpowered individually? But then why isn't there a problem with the Novadive, which also has TT?

Maybe the problem is cluster missiles? But lots of people use rockets, and IMO rockets are actually somewhat better.

So, clusters OR rockets individually? But, again, Novadive has rockets.

Well maybe it's (BO or TT) and (clusters or rockets)? But, AGAIN, Novadive has TT+rockets.

Not to mention some people use booster recharge!

So, really the only thing we are left with to rigorously separate the Flashfire from the Novadive is the availability of quads and BLC - which are also the two most favored weapons for the Flashfire.

So IMO it's only when the whole package of (quads or BLC) and (clusters or rockets) comes together on a scout frame (we aren't nearly as scared of quads/clusters on e.g. a Pike) that we get something distinctly more powerful than any other dogfighter. We get that even if we forgo offensive cooldowns entirely (with booster recharge).

That's why it's so incredibly difficult for us to work this out, because no single component change really works.

How does this reflect on my proposal to remove armor pen from BLC?

Well, the trick is that removing armor pen from BLC is also a stealth nerf to quads, because it makes DR more viable.

This nerf to quads doesn't hurt the Starguard or Pike as much, because they both almost certainly have access to at least one armor pen weapon.

The corner case here is that quads/rockets, already a popular build, is hurt least, so this still isn't a total solution.

If I were going to propose a next step, it would actually be replacing the Flashfire's distortion field with feedback shield - a pretty serious defensive nerf that makes flying a Flashfire a lot riskier.

Alternately, maybe remove quads from the Flashfire entirely and replace them with regular lasers. That restricts quads to strike fighters, and also gives us a way to buff strike fighters without worrying about buffing Flashfires.