Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

[Lieutenant Noir]

In seriousness, Mobula is not OP, junker could maybe use a overhaul, but it's problem is more fundamentally tied to it's giant balloon, and this seems like a giant problem of people getting complacent in their strategies and not experimenting. We're at a more diverse point in the meta than I've seen it in a long time. There are some problems. The Mobula isn't really one of them. Most of the problems in the meta tie to the paradigm of weapon roles that we currently have. 

And I don't think you can make the Junker more competitive by playing with it's stats. It's a ship that's viability is more tied to the weapons that dominate the meta than it's own effectiveness. Increasing the speed still leaves it with a giant, exposed balloon. There is nothing that is going to make the balloon less giant, or less exposed, and a speed ship without a balloon is even more dead than a slow ship without a balloon.

I think people have experimented for a long time and we have seen Junkers in competitive games none the less. My problem isn’t regarding putting Junkers in competitive (although it might lead to that), my issue is in how the ship design of the Junker doesn’t make it very versatile or effective in many different situations in it’s current state.

I do agree that the nature of disables are what make the Junker as ineffective as it is. I will say though... a combination of slow speed and exposed components make disables much easier to hit and make the ship much more vulnerable to future disables.
This is bad for the Junker because the damage modifier from disable weapons will dig even faster into the hull once a component breaks, making that "Second highest armor in the game" useless.
I’m getting a little sick of having to repeat myself so please just read my previously mentioned problems with the current Junker.

-I really like comparing the Junker to the Squid because I think the way the Squid ship is designed is very similar to the Junker. They both have very close components to make it easier to engineer on, very exposed components, and a big balloon at the top.
-I think we see the success of the Squid because it has the maneuverability to nullify it's weaknesses in balloon, hull, engines, and gun exposure as well as counter many builds. I wanted to make the Junker more like the Squid in that it wouldn’t be as fast but have more firepower. I also wanted to decrease it's armor to encourage the play-style of outmaneuvering enemy ships much like the squid.

You would essentially get a less maneuverable Squid with more firepower, long range potential, and tanking capabilities more reliant on ease of engineering rather than high hull health (keeping in mind the Squid Hull health).

Next Topic

We are at the point of GoI where we're talking about nerfing the mobula. Pack it up. Just...pack it up, guys. We've had a good run. This is where a year of nerfs, clans falling apart, and competitive instability has taken us.

-The suggestion for the Mobula wasn’t really to nerf it because it seemed OP, but I felt that the original intention for the Mobula was to have a weakness in turning capabilities. I got the impression from it having a lower turning acceleration than any other ship. Although having low turning acceleration does play into a noticeable weakness at times, from my continued use of the Mobula, it wasn’t enough to be a significant weakness because the Max turning speed was so high.
-I think this is a bit unfair considering I have the Fastest Vertical speed in the game as well as decent forward mobility to control distancing and I only really use them in emergencies. Personally I would be fine using a Mobula if it had a decrease in Max turning speed. The only difference would be that I wouldn’t just rely on turning to get in gun arcs but I would have to manipulate its vertical mobility and Forward mobility a lot more. Not to mention, it would still be able to ram as well as have really good sniping and tanking capabilities.
It would still be a really great ship... just not be as great in more cramped environments where you won’t have a lot of space to use that vertical mobility.

Next Topic

I may have overreacted/exaggerated slightly, a slight loss of turning wont kill dedicated brawl mobulas entirely. Still can't agree with it though, the multi role mobula is powerful at the moment because multi role is more or less the meta, trying to shove everything into a niche seems counterproductive.

Let me better explain the effects of the suggestion.
Both ships would have capabilities in multi-role engagements because both ships have Long and Short range guns. My point is that One ship would be more effective than the other for short and long range engagements but both would still have the potential for Multi-range capabilities.
I wouldn't be shoving the two ships into niches but vague Niches that overlap between each other~

Next Topic

My speculative changes:
Junker
Max turn: 16 --> 14
Turn Acc.:15 --> 13
Vertical Acc.: 3 --> 4
Max Speed: 26 --> 30

-I thought about it a bit and I think 30 Max speed is still a bit too slow for a ship like the Junker with really exposed components.
-I was thinking around 35~ for the ability of making the Junker harder to hit by disables (Keeping in mind the big Balloon and exposed engines).
Also I was thinking that I wanted the Junker to have an advantage in terms of mobility and in this case, have extremely high Turn speed and acceleration with poor Vertical mobility as a weakness.
-I sort of wanted this to balance out with the Junker having low Armor and Health in my previous suggestion. 

Next Topic

Artemis
Down Arc: 35 --> 20

Hwacha
Up/Down Arc: 20 --> 15

The junker would still have good close range turning but wouldn't be able to rely on swapping sides in 3s. The vertical acceleration would make it suffer less from balloon damage and the speed boost would be enough to kill 'fly backwards laughing' as a strategy.

Dropping the artemis arc would force the mobula to chose between safety and attacking and would be an indirect buff to the spire, junker and galleon.

I think a certain somebody will try to hunt you down for suggesting a change like this to the Artemis 
I don't know if I like the idea of decreasing the Arcs because I kinda like how there are good arcs and weak arcs in terms of upward and downward aiming.
However, I might as well add fuel to your fire......
I would want the Artemis to break components only in two shots considering we have a Nerf of the Heavy Clip Light Carronade in disabling as well as the Carronades having to break balloons in two clips. Also make the Artemis only break components in one shot if using charged. I would want to increase component health instead of decrease Shatter damage because there are still achievements where people have to break Armor with Rockets.
--------
I'm not taking this one too seriously because I'm sure many people like the current Artemis and it's ability to literally make any ship effective if you have enough of them.


As for the Lion gun, an increase in Jitter would make me happy. I think it's current arcs are fairly decent and I think what most people agree upon is the fact that there is so little spread on the rockets.

[Daft Loon]

Obligatory math dump:
A mobula turning full speed:
14 deg/s
= 25.7s/rotation
A squid 'orbiting'
25.7 * 47
= 1200m
=192m circle radius (maximum distance for the squid to not get caught by turning)

A mobula turning full speed and reversing:
25.7s/rotation
28*0.7
= 19.6m/s backwards
Effective squid speed
47 - 19.6
= 27.4 (not 100% sure the geometry actually works out like that)
=704m
=112m circle

Its theoretically possible for a squid to keep permanently out of arc but maybe not practical, particularly if losing speed to turn a second gun. Is it something that should be possible?

This is bad for the Junker because the damage modifier from disable weapons will dig even faster into the hull once a component breaks, making that "Second highest armor in the game" useless

I thought that mechanic was gone a while ago.

-I thought about it a bit and I think 30 Max speed is still a bit too slow for a ship like the Junker with really exposed components.
-I was thinking around 35~ for the ability of making the Junker harder to hit by disables (Keeping in mind the big Balloon and exposed engines).
Also I was thinking that I wanted the Junker to have an advantage in terms of mobility and in this case, have extremely high Turn speed and acceleration with poor Vertical mobility as a weakness.
-I sort of wanted this to balance out with the Junker having low Armor and Health in my previous suggestion.

I was thinking of those changes as standalone. Change the armor and 35 would indeed be needed, i like the current obnoxiously high armor though - there's nothing quite like having a carronade fish just flat fail to kill you on the ground (if you hit the ground slow with drogue chute and terrain denies them much in the way of rams its almost inevitable)

I really think the artemis needs something though, in its current form it essentially nullifies the spire and galleon unless you bring a top rate lumberjack gunner. Reducing the downward arc is one of the few things i can think of that isn't dumbing it down or breaking ship builds and happens to be relevant to mobula in particular. Making it need 2 shots goes a bit too far i think and would essentially become 3 shots on any gun manned by an engineer with mallet.

I would want to increase component health instead of decrease Shatter damage because there are still achievements where people have to break Armor with Rockets.

Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??

[MightyKeb]

Obligatory math dump:
A mobula turning full speed:
14 deg/s
= 25.7s/rotation
A squid 'orbiting'
25.7 * 47
= 1200m
=192m circle radius (maximum distance for the squid to not get caught by turning)

A mobula turning full speed and reversing:
25.7s/rotation
28*0.7
= 19.6m/s backwards
Effective squid speed
47 - 19.6
= 27.4 (not 100% sure the geometry actually works out like that)
=704m
=112m circle

Its theoretically possible for a squid to keep permanently out of arc but maybe not practical, particularly if losing speed to turn a second gun. Is it something that should be possible?

Each engine of the squid makes up 25% of it's accel, top speed, and I believe turning speed/accel aswell. This means when one engine is down, the ship functions at 75% of it's speed instead of 100%, whilst 2 engines would bring it down to 50% and so on. In high level, it's pretty easy to shoot a single engine of a squid down and sometimes that's really all it needs to lose the fight.

Divide 47 - 19.6 by 50%, and you get 23.5 - 9.8. Add the +25% and I believe that should make it somewhere around 30 - 13. Even then, it's more than enough for the mobula to keep up. So yes, I think it should be possible, considering Squid is the best suited ship for playing into Mobula's weaknesses. Right now it's possible to gain some speed over a Mobula's turning but once it picks up momentum it matches almost exactly the same speed. This is okay if you start the fight with a good angle on the mobula, not so much when you're making a charge. One could argue that Squid isn't made for charging, but then the Mobula's only true weakness comes from the very niche and advanced practice of flanking. This makes me the mobula one of the most if not the most powerful ship for mid, and sometimes even high level play.

[Dementio]

One could argue that Squid isn't made for charging, but then the Mobula's only true weakness comes from the very niche and advanced practice of flanking. This makes me the mobula one of the most if not the most powerful ship for mid, and sometimes even high level play.

A Junker has guns on all sides except at its back, which it more often than not can easily turn away. This should make the Junker better against flanking enemies than the Mobula for its guns would always be ready and on target, making it more viable in mid/high level play.

A Squid, and many other ships, could try charge the Mobula from below or above it. All it takes for the Squid is getting behind it once.



A Junker can also circle around the Mobula actually. Not in terms of speed, but in terms of making the Mobula burn its engines. This can happen when the Mobula wants to build distance, but gets shot at at the same time, since balloon and armor engineer are responsible for engines and to make sure the Junker stops shooting, the Mobula needs the third guy to shoot back, who is responsible for the main engine. Thus, it is not unlikely that the Mobula loses a huge amount of speed and gets stuck on the horizontal plane. A Mobula with only one working turning engine can never hope to move straight ever again, it is already bad when one of the turning engines is at half health while the other is at full health, that thing turns easily, which causes a reduction in distance traveled in relation to the chasing Junker.

Once the Junker has managed to get onto the Mobula's side one thing happens: Hardcore tanking, by the Mobula. A good Junker that got to this point is very likely in a position where the Mobula cannot achieve victory anymore, since one hydrogen or chute vent may not be enough to save it and instead just delay the inevitable loss.
I know this from experience! When I was the Mobula! Against a basic Metajunker, the one with the Gat/Mortar!

Btw, during a scrim against a team which Sammy was sub-piloting for, we ended up in a 1v1 disable lock on the ground as a Mobula against Sammy's Junker. I went was very close, but we still weren't winning so I tried to back up by using Kerosene again, thinking that normal speed wasn't enough speed, I ended up with damaged engines so I was kind of stuck at a weird distance. If the battle had taking a bit longer, we would have died, but luckily the Junker gave in, in time. Mind you that was him sub-piloting with a crew he maybe never played with before at all, and certainly not at comp level, against a full Rydr ship which was very well practised at what it did. So the Junker may not be so weak as it is made out to be, even against a disable Mobula, and it certainly can trifecta in close range too, even I can do that.



But now to these things

Mobula

Suggestion and suggested effects
-I would want the Max Turning speed to be similar to that of a Galleon (8.02 deg/s)

A problem that the Mobula always had, which still persists, is when people used it like a gunning platform, which is easy to do, but not the winning strategy, since if you don't want to make use of that vertical mobility, a long range Junker would be the better choice, because the Junker has an easier time repairing and buffing and can dodge just as well in long range, except maybe against Lumberjack.
I see where you are going with this idea, but out of the few ways you can actually fly it, you will remove the one that requires skill and is the rewarding one, while leaving the one in the game that people constantly whine about being tired of (Hades/Merc and double Artemis hardcore sniping for 10 minutes straight). I would rather have one of its light guns removed, making it less of a gunning platform and more something that pilots actually have to think about how to fly, and although I am not favouring this idea, I personally don't think it is that bad of a decision to remove one of its light guns.

Junker

Suggestion
-Then I would see the Junker being more of an Ambush ship with Pilots bringing it for High risk (In regards to the Low Health and Armor) for High reward (Good mobility and Firepower)

The Junker does by design not fit into the ambush section. Unlike every other ship except the Galleon, it has to waste its ambush time to get into a position and then shoot the enemy, because its guns are on the side. Pyramidion, Mobula and so on, do better because when they ambush they can go directly forward towards their enemy meaning they already are in position. The forward gun of the Junker can help put some damage on the enemy or even disable them, but generally that alone just won't do the trick for the Junker.

[MightyKeb]

Mobula

Suggestion and suggested effects
-I would want the Max Turning speed to be similar to that of a Galleon (8.02 deg/s)

A problem that the Mobula always had, which still persists, is when people used it like a gunning platform, which is easy to do, but not the winning strategy, since if you don't want to make use of that vertical mobility, a long range Junker would be the better choice, because the Junker has an easier time repairing and buffing and can dodge just as well in long range, except maybe against Lumberjack.
I see where you are going with this idea, but out of the few ways you can actually fly it, you will remove the one that requires skill and is the rewarding one, while leaving the one in the game that people constantly whine about being tired of (Hades/Merc and double Artemis hardcore sniping for 10 minutes straight). I would rather have one of its light guns removed, making it less of a gunning platform and more something that pilots actually have to think about how to fly, and although I am not favouring this idea, I personally don't think it is that bad of a decision to remove one of its light guns.

Then why not just tone it down just enough that using Claw on mobula gives you almost exactly the same top speed that it does now, so the "skillful" part of playing mobula isnt exactly gone, except now there's an actual downside to being able to keep up with the enemy?

[BlackenedPies]

Don't forget that with mobula you'll probably only have 1 buff max whereas all other ships are great with 2. An interesting change for junker would be increasing its max vertical speed. All ships have the same vertical speed (16.97 - 17.06 m/s). Increasing its max vertical speed might make sense due to its large balloon which might cause drag but allow a higher top speed.

If the mobula is too OP decrease max speed to that of junker: 26. A bulky wide ship should have plenty of drag and relatively slow speed. Junker is the slowest ship in the game.

[Lieutenant Noir]

A problem that the Mobula always had, which still persists, is when people used it like a gunning platform, which is easy to do, but not the winning strategy, since if you don't want to make use of that vertical mobility, a long range Junker would be the better choice, because the Junker has an easier time repairing and buffing and can dodge just as well in long range, except maybe against Lumberjack.
I see where you are going with this idea, but out of the few ways you can actually fly it, you will remove the one that requires skill and is the rewarding one, while leaving the one in the game that people constantly whine about being tired of (Hades/Merc and double Artemis hardcore sniping for 10 minutes straight). I would rather have one of its light guns removed, making it less of a gunning platform and more something that pilots actually have to think about how to fly, and although I am not favouring this idea, I personally don't think it is that bad of a decision to remove one of its light guns.

I think that playing the Mobula like a gunning platform is using a ship to it's greatest strengths. This aspect is not something I have a problem with. I think that I have too much of an unfair advantage over other ships when all I have to do is turn to get enemies into arc while having the highest Vertical mobility as well as decent Forward mobility tucked away in emergencies. I think that in brawling engagements, the ship should encourage the use of it's vertical and Forward mobility more in terms of getting guns into arcs. I wouldn't want to remove one of it's light guns because you decrease it's capabilities in short range engagements as well as long range engagements. This would make the Mobula either specialized into short or long range builds and would decrease it's versatility significantly. I want the Mobula to have capabilities in Long and Short range engagements but I want it to have a significant weakness in one aspect of it's mobility. Also, how is the Mobula not a forward facing shooting-gallery/gunning-platform? It is basically a gunning platform and so should have long and short range guns to compensate for the fact that you would want your enemies in front of you at all times.

Also I want to say that I don't like how the Junker is configured towards Long range play. Mainly because it has very exposed components and a big balloon which means a ship like that staying still is a ridiculously easy target. I mentioned some of the problems in disabling in a previous post.

Next Topic

The Junker does by design not fit into the ambush section. Unlike every other ship except the Galleon, it has to waste its ambush time to get into a position and then shoot the enemy, because its guns are on the side. Pyramidion, Mobula and so on, do better because when they ambush they can go directly forward towards their enemy meaning they already are in position. The forward gun of the Junker can help put some damage on the enemy or even disable them, but generally that alone just won't do the trick for the Junker.

I mentioned before in a previous post that I liked comparing the Junker to the Squid because I thought that the two were very similar in design. I think it also applies in terms of Gun placement, which makes it favor outmaneuvering and circling due to it's relatively high acceleration and more firepower on it's broadsides. I worded Ambushing wrong, I wanted it to be more like the Squid by increasing it's mobility to favor Circling and maneuvering outside of enemy arcs. I meant something along the lines of distracting and breaking formations, not ambushing. I would want to make the ship better at this play style because the way the ship is designed, doesn't make it a very good Sniping/Slow/Tank. Mind you with the current change, it would still be relatively good at Long range play but it would need the help of a good distraction considering the change in armor.

Next Topic

Its theoretically possible for a squid to keep permanently out of arc but maybe not practical, particularly if losing speed to turn a second gun. Is it something that should be possible?

A Mobula with it's strengths in Vertical and Forward mobility should be using those strengths to get in arcs/avoid enemy arcs. If all you're doing is circling in a slow turn speed ship, you would be playing towards the weaknesses of the ship. Also, considering we currently have builds that counter specific ships (and we've been fine with that) I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing.

Next Topic

Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??

I would \o
Those are three good components you can disable in one clip and you would normally want two Artemis'es in the first place on a ship. I do pretty well with a Mercury with only two shots and with heat-sink I can disable three components.
If we change the Hwatcha back to the previous high jitter,
Heavy clip normally broke 1 or 2 components in a clip at long range and burst would break 4 or 5 in one clip at short range. Remember, that reload time is pretty damn long and Hwatcha shots don't hit every time.
--------------------------
But enough about changes to the Artemis.... I don't want to be hunted any more than you do. 

[Daft Loon]

Some further thoughts:
How often do i actually use the maximum turn speed, I play mobula mainly on duel/paritan/canyons where circling is not even possible in most places. I'll have to bring it out again and pay attention to that next time i get a competent crew who don't mind moonshine rams.
The simplest way to nerf turn speed - increasing angular drag - would help with the 'clip a building even slightly - spin 720' problem the mobula has at the moment. I wouldn't mind that aspect at all.

Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??

I would \o
Those are three good components you can disable in one clip and you would normally want two Artemis'es in the first place on a ship. I do pretty well with a Mercury with only two shots and with heat-sink I can disable three components.
If we change the Hwatcha back to the previous high jitter,
Heavy clip normally broke 1 or 2 components in a clip at long range and burst would break 4 or 5 in one clip at short range. Remember, that reload time is pretty damn long and Hwatcha shots don't hit every time.

I don't follow. You were talking about breaking armor with the artemis for an achievement as a reason to avoid certain stat changes but that achievement can be gained far easier with the other kinds of rockets.

[Lieutenant Noir]

Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??

I would \o
Those are three good components you can disable in one clip and you would normally want two Artemis'es in the first place on a ship. I do pretty well with a Mercury with only two shots and with heat-sink I can disable three components.
If we change the Hwatcha back to the previous high jitter,
Heavy clip normally broke 1 or 2 components in a clip at long range and burst would break 4 or 5 in one clip at short range. Remember, that reload time is pretty damn long and Hwatcha shots don't hit every time.

I don't follow. You were talking about breaking armor with the artemis for an achievement as a reason to avoid certain stat changes but that achievement can be gained far easier with the other kinds of rockets.

Oops I meant this quote not that one

Making it need 2 shots goes a bit too far i think and would essentially become 3 shots on any gun manned by an engineer with mallet.

Next Topic

The simplest way to nerf turn speed - increasing angular drag - would help with the 'clip a building even slightly - spin 720' problem the mobula has at the moment. I wouldn't mind that aspect at all.

Do you mean increasing angular drag for all ships or increasing it on phoenix claw?
Also where do you see it? I've only seen it on helm items.

[Daft Loon]

That makes more sense.


Increasing angular drag on the mobula alone as a way to reduce its maximum turn speed. Its neater than changing the engine stats which would change acceleration and linear movement as well.

I'm not aware of a way to see the drag stats for ships, i may be wrong about the way things work and turn speed etc are arbitrary but i think the speed, acceleration etc stats that are visible are derived from engine thrust, engine position, drag and mass.

[BlackenedPies]

I don't think mobula should be turn nerfed. If ya wanna nerf it give it junker speed. Complicated changes wont be implemented.

[MightyKeb]

I don't think mobula should be turn nerfed. If ya wanna nerf it give it junker speed. Complicated changes wont be implemented.

A vertical god like the mobula should have weak turning, considering it's meant to be weak to flanks and nothing can follow its' hydro. Nerfing the top speed would actually make brawbula worse- there's a reason why junker metas are all long range.

[Mean Machine]

I don't remember anyone complaining about mobula when pyra was dominating skies. So mobula back then was fine, but suddenly it's op now? This is a same pattern I see in pretty much every online game, people always have something to complain about and they always want nerfs instead of looking for buffs. Why not look at the ships that are not used a lot and why is that and how we can fix that? Even though I don't really think any ship is OP or underpowered at the moment. I just think that people are simply flying certain ships more so they have more experience with it and thus they perform better with it. For example I can't fly galleon or junker well, not because they are not on par with mobula or whatever, it's simply that I don't fly them often in pugs, so I can't really get the hang of it. I don't trust most of the players I get in pugs to shoot long range guns and engineer on galleon/junker, because it's not as easy as on pyramidion or goldfish, so that's why I rarely fly them and don't have much experience with them.

We have seen some successful galleons, junkers and even spire in competitive, which means it is totally doable, but you just need to put an effort into it. You can't expect to master all ships in same amount of time playing. Most pilots will learn how to fly goldfish properly way faster than galleon for example. Same for the crew. They will learn how to crew fish faster than galleon. So, if you don't see as many successful junkers in competitive as mobulas, that doesn't mean mobula is op. (Sorry Daniel )

If you engage in the open and start chasing squid while turning your broadside to hades/arty mobula then ofc its op, because you did a fatal mistake.
Same as if you let squid get behind you or in your blind spot. That doesn't mean any of these ships are op. You just have to think what is the strenght and weakness of each ship and how will you exploit that.

Does anyone think Quad hwacha galleons are op? Yes, I know hwacha is pretty effective now, but if any experienced player thinks quad hwacha galleon is op, then they are nuts.
That didn't stop us in last SCS to get absolutely wrecked by that 4-hwacha galleon. But not because it's op, it was because enemy was smart and chose the right tactics. Squid was baiting and retreating to his ally galleon because they knew we don't have much choice with two short range ships.

Honestly I think that junkers and galleons are very strong ships, but they might be the hardest to master. I think all ships that have good or decent mobility like goldfish, squid, mobula and old pyra are fairly easy to pilot and crew on. Ships with good mobility can position, ambush, retreat, dodge, support, follow, get in combat way easier, while galleon for example needs to be more carefull about positioning, because there is a good chance once he's in combat he won't be going anywhere. You either kill them or they kill you. By "not going anywhere" I mean he can't really retreat if he gets in trouble. Same goes for junker.
Goldfish or squid can often just run away. Don't like engagement? Back off and try again, which ultimately allows for some small mistakes.

So, to sum it up, I believe all ships can perform very well if crew is experienced with it, but not all ships are ideal for eaxh map or against each opponent/builds.
A ship can seem extremly powerful if you let it do what it does the best.

Only balancing thing I agree on would be to increase armor on Spire.

[Lieutenant Noir]

Increasing angular drag on the mobula alone as a way to reduce its maximum turn speed. Its neater than changing the engine stats which would change acceleration and linear movement as well.

I'm not aware of a way to see the drag stats for ships, i may be wrong about the way things work and turn speed etc are arbitrary but i think the speed, acceleration etc stats that are visible are derived from engine thrust, engine position, drag and mass.

Okay, I've been looking through the wiki and previous old forum posts from the old forum for stats on Ship specific Drag stats.
I've also been looking at the very first update patches.
Are you making this up?
or are you suggesting adding increased drag specifically for one ship? Cause I would honestly think it would be simpler to change it's Max turn speed if you were going to nerf it.

Next Topic

I don't think mobula should be turn nerfed. If ya wanna nerf it give it junker speed. Complicated changes wont be implemented.

-I did kinda think about decreasing it's top speed originally to make it more like a turret, but I think the Spire should have that kind of turret role.
-I really liked Byron's post about switching the stats of the Spire and Junker because the way the Spire is designed with so much exposed armor and open platforms for increased situational awareness makes it a pretty good turret. It also has the firepower to make up for its weaknesses in exposed components. You would decrease the ability of chasing that Brawl Spires have but make the ship more able to tank as well as encourage more gun shooting/less repairing.
-The Mobula has a big balloon at the bottom that hides components. The Balloon at the bottom also works against the upward arcs of the Carronades as well as projectile drop of Lumberjacks. I don't think a turret should have these kinds of advantages.
-Not to mention, the Mobula features many claustrophobic compartments which decrease situational awareness when firing guns.
-I believe a turret should be vulnerable on all angles while having high armor, firepower, reactivity, and situational awareness to make up for it's lack of top Speed and vulnerability.

-Also a decrease in top speed would decrease its advantages in controlling distances. I think this advantage is what gives the Mobula its greatest strengths in Multi-range engagements because you can better control the types of guns (be it long or short range) you want fired as well as keep them firing because they'll still be in arcs.
-While you could argue a decrease in turn speed would do this even more, only certain ships have capabilities in circling the Mobula (Junker, Squid, Goldfish). The rest mostly rely on more firepower, ambushing and killing the Mobula before it can get arcs with its high turn speed, or hoping that the Mobula is in a position to get surrounded/Flanked.

-I think the forward facing guns, the forward mobility, and tunnel vision design of the ship should play towards the ship's strengths in controlling distances. I think the key to flying a ship like the Mobula should be to always have multiple enemies in front of the ship to avoid being flanked due to slow turn speed. When I used to fly a MinePyra (before the Nerf) and I was being double teamed, I would always fly to have close range capabilities with mines and long range capabilities with an Artemis on both enemies to avoid getting surrounded. I didn't turn once, I just relied on always being in a position to have the guns in arcs by backing up.

-I think the current Mobula is too forgiving in positions where it is being Flanked or surrounded and I think Pilots should be more punished for carelessly being in those scenarios considering you have guns at the Front where you can directly control distance.

[Daft Loon]

Increasing angular drag on the mobula alone as a way to reduce its maximum turn speed. Its neater than changing the engine stats which would change acceleration and linear movement as well.

I'm not aware of a way to see the drag stats for ships, i may be wrong about the way things work and turn speed etc are arbitrary but i think the speed, acceleration etc stats that are visible are derived from engine thrust, engine position, drag and mass.

Okay, I've been looking through the wiki and previous old forum posts from the old forum for stats on Ship specific Drag stats.
I've also been looking at the very first update patches.
Are you making this up?
or are you suggesting adding increased drag specifically for one ship? Cause I would honestly think it would be simpler to change it's Max turn speed if you were going to nerf it.

I'm assuming on the basis of the helm tools that claim to change drag that it exists as a stat in its own right. It makes sense in a way since having maximum turning speed etc set directly still leaves a need for a stat to determine how the ship acts when drifting, hit by a harpoon etc whereas a ship with mass and drag can react to force from engines, minotaurs, rams etc according to the same rules for all of them.