Forums » Suggestions
Engine Balance revisited (long post)
Ok, I started one thread on this topic a while ago,
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6509
However, I’ve put a lot of thought into it and modified my solution somewhat; to the point of tying several other things that I personally feel need tweaked into my solutions. This post is long. And also, as a change for me, the ideas here wouldn’t be as simple to add to vendetta as some of my prior suggestions have been. On the whole however I think I have come up with a fairly interesting solution to 3 related vendetta problems.
The first and primary thing I see as a problem is the ability to infinitely turbo with the Fast Charge battery. This makes it far too easy for players to escape combat if they choose to run, allowing pirates to escape attempts at retribution, CtC players to swoop in, blow up a transport, grab some cargo and be gone long before anyone can counterattack, and it removes a large portion of the danger involved in trading. Making a trade run into grey space is supposed to be a journey with a large portion of risk. As it is now, the only danger is if a pirate catches you right out of the wormhole and you happen to exit the warp almost right on top of him.
The second thing I see as a problem is that the 3K warp limit, which is supposed to create additional opportunities for PvP, acts more as a barrier to the new players, and doesn’t even really slow down higher level players.
The last thing I see as a problem is tied primarily into the first 2. That is the fact that Ion storms, which are supposed to provide an element of danger, also become nothing more than a minor nuisance after you pass a certain level. I don’t really have a specific solution to this, but my changes to fix the first 2 problems seem to work well to add danger back into the ion storms.
My proposals are as follows then. I want to do a few separate things.
---------------- PART 1 --------------------
First I would like to tie the distance from a large object you can warp at directly to the type of engine on your ship, and then modify that by how much mass your ship has.
To do this I suggest that we add player selected engines back into the game, with a few changes to how they are balanced with each other. There would be 3 main engines; slow, normal, and fast, all of which would have the same acceleration, and use the same amount of energy to turbo. The engines would differ in top speed, mass, jump distance, and mass adjustment – the amount that mass affects the jump distance.
I see the engines having the following stats:
All 3 main engines would have the following stats.
Acceleration/roll – the same as the current heavy engines
Turbo drain – 60 energy/second
Slow engine
Speed/ turbo speed – 45/160
Mass – 500
Jump distance – 1950 meters (2000 meters once you add in the mass of the engine itself)
Mass adjustment - +100 meters / 1000K mass
Normal Engine
Speed/ turbo speed – 55/180
Mass – 1000
Jump distance – 2950 meters (3000 meters once you add in the mass of the engine itself)
Mass adjustment - +50 meters / 1000K mass
Fast Engine
Speed/ turbo speed – 65/200
Mass – 2000
Jump distance – 4950 meters (5000 meters once you add in the mass of the engine itself)
Mass adjustment - +25 meters / 1000K mass
In addition to the 3 main engines, there would be 2 special engines, the free engine, and the Efficient Engine.
Both of these engines would have an acceleration/roll rate equal to that of the current medium engine.
They would use turbo energy at a rate of 55 energy per second.
The Free engine would have the following stats
Speed/ turbo speed – 50/100
Mass – negligible
Jump distance – 1500 meters
Mass adjustment – none. This engine can always jump at a distance of 1500 meters regardless of the mass.
Efficient Engine
Speed/ turbo speed – 45/180
Mass – 2000
Jump distance – 3900 meters (4000 meters once you add in the mass of the engine itself)
Mass adjustment - +50 meters / 1000K mass
I have chosen these numbers for the following reasons.
1. The main engines have the same acceleration/turbo usage so that the choice of engine becomes one of top speed vs jump distance, meaning that a light engine is just as effective at dodging at close quarters as a heavy engine is.
The special engines give the additional benefit of having better energy usage at the cost of some acceleration. Each also has a specific drawback to counter its other advantages.
2. At a drain of 60 and 55 energy per second infinite turbo cannot be achieved. (No I’m not getting rid of it; see part 2 of this post, engine modifications)
The free engine allows new players to largely ignore the 3k warp limit, speeding up travel times for them. I don’t see it as being useful in combat because even if you can sector jump in a hurry, intercepting you as you make your way to the next wormhole is ridiculously easy with the top speed/acceleration limits imposed on it.
The efficient engine provides a nice balance of energy usage with top turbo speed, but isn’t as effective in combat due to its lower top speed and acceleration.
------------------ PART 2 ------------------
Modifying the engines as above would IMO solve most of the problems I mentioned above, but still only leave us with effectively 5 choices for ship/engine configurations. To change that I would also propose that the engine modifications I suggested in my other thread still be added. I’ll go ahead and recap them here just to have it all on the same page, as I have also made some minor changes in how I would apply them to the new engines.
I would propose that each ship be given engine modification slots.
The various EC-Series craft would not have a modification slot, (to help keep things more simple for the new players) with the exception of the Axia Bus, which would have 1.
The Centaur, Rangarok, Marauder, and the Prometheous would each have 2.
All the other ships would be given 1.
In those slots could be equipped one of the following engine mods. All the mods would have a mass of 250. You would not be required to have an engine mod in the slot, and if you left them empty your ship just uses the basic stats of whatever engine you chose.
Top Speed- Increase top speed by +10/+20 | Increase energy used in turbo by +5 | Reduce accel/roll by -10%
Energy Efficient – Decrease top speed by -10/-20 | Decrease energy used in turbo by -5 | no change to accel/roll
Acceleration – Decrease top speed by -5/-10 | No change to energy use in turbo | Increase accel/roll by +20%
Jump Reduction – Decrease top speed by -5/-10 | No change in energy use for turbo | no change to accel/roll | Reduces the distance needed to do a sector jump by 750 Meters
Hauling – Decrease top speed by -5/-10 | Increase energy used in turbo by +5 | Increase Accel in the forward direction by 40%, All other Accel/Roll reduced by 20%.
The engine mods were designed to allow a great deal of customization in the attributes of the ships, while still leaving things pretty well balanced. I have tried to set it up so that no one combination of engine/mod(s) is Uber. If you can find one based on the numbers listed here, please point it out so I can look at it and see if it can be balanced.
Now, I’m sure someone will ask why the valk doesn’t get 2 engine mod ports like the other 2 specials. The reason is that I don’t feel it needs the advantage of a second mod port as much as either the prom or the marauder does. I’m open to debate on that point however.
Not giving it 2 means that 4 other ships could potentially have a top speed of 240m/s where its top speed is potentially 220. However I feel that with as low as the mass on it is, a single top speed mod would allow it to catch one of the larger ships before they got a chance to reach their top speed.
Additionally giving it an accel mod will allow it to reach its top speed of 190 far before the larger heavier ships could get even that high, giving it a window of opportunity to intercept. It will also use less turbo energy allowing it to maintain top speed for longer. Additionally since it masses less it will be able to jump a bit sooner.
All ships could use infinite turbo by taking an efficient (or free) engine with an efficiency mod, and the 4 ships with 2 mods could infinite turbo with all the engines. It would even be possible for the ships with dual efficiency mods and an efficient (or free) engine to gain battery power back while turboing, but their top turbo speed would be 140m/s.
Between the engines and thier mods, the first two problems i mentioned at the top are mostly dealt with, and between them they also affect the third. Stoms become much more dangerous for a craft with a lower top speed because the bots now have a chance to catch them.
IMO this would require a few changes, some server side, some in player style. The first change would be that storms would have to be reduced in number(cut them to 25% as often), but potentially appear anywhere in space, not just in asteroid sectors. This means that sometimes when you ended up in a storm there would be no bots, but a human pirate might be waiting there for you.
The second serverside change would be for all storms to have 2 or 3 exit points, but for all of them to be visible and constant(everyone has the same 2-3 choices).
The above changes would also add more player to player cooperation to the game. Players would need to cooperate more by passing storm info around and/or running transports in groups with escorts for added firepower. Trade groups would have more of a reason for existing because a transport would have less chance to escape a pirate on his/her own.
I’m looking for constructive criticism, obvious holes in my logic, anything I haven’t thought of. If you are going to comment on this post, please have some arguments concerning the topic.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6509
However, I’ve put a lot of thought into it and modified my solution somewhat; to the point of tying several other things that I personally feel need tweaked into my solutions. This post is long. And also, as a change for me, the ideas here wouldn’t be as simple to add to vendetta as some of my prior suggestions have been. On the whole however I think I have come up with a fairly interesting solution to 3 related vendetta problems.
The first and primary thing I see as a problem is the ability to infinitely turbo with the Fast Charge battery. This makes it far too easy for players to escape combat if they choose to run, allowing pirates to escape attempts at retribution, CtC players to swoop in, blow up a transport, grab some cargo and be gone long before anyone can counterattack, and it removes a large portion of the danger involved in trading. Making a trade run into grey space is supposed to be a journey with a large portion of risk. As it is now, the only danger is if a pirate catches you right out of the wormhole and you happen to exit the warp almost right on top of him.
The second thing I see as a problem is that the 3K warp limit, which is supposed to create additional opportunities for PvP, acts more as a barrier to the new players, and doesn’t even really slow down higher level players.
The last thing I see as a problem is tied primarily into the first 2. That is the fact that Ion storms, which are supposed to provide an element of danger, also become nothing more than a minor nuisance after you pass a certain level. I don’t really have a specific solution to this, but my changes to fix the first 2 problems seem to work well to add danger back into the ion storms.
My proposals are as follows then. I want to do a few separate things.
---------------- PART 1 --------------------
First I would like to tie the distance from a large object you can warp at directly to the type of engine on your ship, and then modify that by how much mass your ship has.
To do this I suggest that we add player selected engines back into the game, with a few changes to how they are balanced with each other. There would be 3 main engines; slow, normal, and fast, all of which would have the same acceleration, and use the same amount of energy to turbo. The engines would differ in top speed, mass, jump distance, and mass adjustment – the amount that mass affects the jump distance.
I see the engines having the following stats:
All 3 main engines would have the following stats.
Acceleration/roll – the same as the current heavy engines
Turbo drain – 60 energy/second
Slow engine
Speed/ turbo speed – 45/160
Mass – 500
Jump distance – 1950 meters (2000 meters once you add in the mass of the engine itself)
Mass adjustment - +100 meters / 1000K mass
Normal Engine
Speed/ turbo speed – 55/180
Mass – 1000
Jump distance – 2950 meters (3000 meters once you add in the mass of the engine itself)
Mass adjustment - +50 meters / 1000K mass
Fast Engine
Speed/ turbo speed – 65/200
Mass – 2000
Jump distance – 4950 meters (5000 meters once you add in the mass of the engine itself)
Mass adjustment - +25 meters / 1000K mass
In addition to the 3 main engines, there would be 2 special engines, the free engine, and the Efficient Engine.
Both of these engines would have an acceleration/roll rate equal to that of the current medium engine.
They would use turbo energy at a rate of 55 energy per second.
The Free engine would have the following stats
Speed/ turbo speed – 50/100
Mass – negligible
Jump distance – 1500 meters
Mass adjustment – none. This engine can always jump at a distance of 1500 meters regardless of the mass.
Efficient Engine
Speed/ turbo speed – 45/180
Mass – 2000
Jump distance – 3900 meters (4000 meters once you add in the mass of the engine itself)
Mass adjustment - +50 meters / 1000K mass
I have chosen these numbers for the following reasons.
1. The main engines have the same acceleration/turbo usage so that the choice of engine becomes one of top speed vs jump distance, meaning that a light engine is just as effective at dodging at close quarters as a heavy engine is.
The special engines give the additional benefit of having better energy usage at the cost of some acceleration. Each also has a specific drawback to counter its other advantages.
2. At a drain of 60 and 55 energy per second infinite turbo cannot be achieved. (No I’m not getting rid of it; see part 2 of this post, engine modifications)
The free engine allows new players to largely ignore the 3k warp limit, speeding up travel times for them. I don’t see it as being useful in combat because even if you can sector jump in a hurry, intercepting you as you make your way to the next wormhole is ridiculously easy with the top speed/acceleration limits imposed on it.
The efficient engine provides a nice balance of energy usage with top turbo speed, but isn’t as effective in combat due to its lower top speed and acceleration.
------------------ PART 2 ------------------
Modifying the engines as above would IMO solve most of the problems I mentioned above, but still only leave us with effectively 5 choices for ship/engine configurations. To change that I would also propose that the engine modifications I suggested in my other thread still be added. I’ll go ahead and recap them here just to have it all on the same page, as I have also made some minor changes in how I would apply them to the new engines.
I would propose that each ship be given engine modification slots.
The various EC-Series craft would not have a modification slot, (to help keep things more simple for the new players) with the exception of the Axia Bus, which would have 1.
The Centaur, Rangarok, Marauder, and the Prometheous would each have 2.
All the other ships would be given 1.
In those slots could be equipped one of the following engine mods. All the mods would have a mass of 250. You would not be required to have an engine mod in the slot, and if you left them empty your ship just uses the basic stats of whatever engine you chose.
Top Speed- Increase top speed by +10/+20 | Increase energy used in turbo by +5 | Reduce accel/roll by -10%
Energy Efficient – Decrease top speed by -10/-20 | Decrease energy used in turbo by -5 | no change to accel/roll
Acceleration – Decrease top speed by -5/-10 | No change to energy use in turbo | Increase accel/roll by +20%
Jump Reduction – Decrease top speed by -5/-10 | No change in energy use for turbo | no change to accel/roll | Reduces the distance needed to do a sector jump by 750 Meters
Hauling – Decrease top speed by -5/-10 | Increase energy used in turbo by +5 | Increase Accel in the forward direction by 40%, All other Accel/Roll reduced by 20%.
The engine mods were designed to allow a great deal of customization in the attributes of the ships, while still leaving things pretty well balanced. I have tried to set it up so that no one combination of engine/mod(s) is Uber. If you can find one based on the numbers listed here, please point it out so I can look at it and see if it can be balanced.
Now, I’m sure someone will ask why the valk doesn’t get 2 engine mod ports like the other 2 specials. The reason is that I don’t feel it needs the advantage of a second mod port as much as either the prom or the marauder does. I’m open to debate on that point however.
Not giving it 2 means that 4 other ships could potentially have a top speed of 240m/s where its top speed is potentially 220. However I feel that with as low as the mass on it is, a single top speed mod would allow it to catch one of the larger ships before they got a chance to reach their top speed.
Additionally giving it an accel mod will allow it to reach its top speed of 190 far before the larger heavier ships could get even that high, giving it a window of opportunity to intercept. It will also use less turbo energy allowing it to maintain top speed for longer. Additionally since it masses less it will be able to jump a bit sooner.
All ships could use infinite turbo by taking an efficient (or free) engine with an efficiency mod, and the 4 ships with 2 mods could infinite turbo with all the engines. It would even be possible for the ships with dual efficiency mods and an efficient (or free) engine to gain battery power back while turboing, but their top turbo speed would be 140m/s.
Between the engines and thier mods, the first two problems i mentioned at the top are mostly dealt with, and between them they also affect the third. Stoms become much more dangerous for a craft with a lower top speed because the bots now have a chance to catch them.
IMO this would require a few changes, some server side, some in player style. The first change would be that storms would have to be reduced in number(cut them to 25% as often), but potentially appear anywhere in space, not just in asteroid sectors. This means that sometimes when you ended up in a storm there would be no bots, but a human pirate might be waiting there for you.
The second serverside change would be for all storms to have 2 or 3 exit points, but for all of them to be visible and constant(everyone has the same 2-3 choices).
The above changes would also add more player to player cooperation to the game. Players would need to cooperate more by passing storm info around and/or running transports in groups with escorts for added firepower. Trade groups would have more of a reason for existing because a transport would have less chance to escape a pirate on his/her own.
I’m looking for constructive criticism, obvious holes in my logic, anything I haven’t thought of. If you are going to comment on this post, please have some arguments concerning the topic.
Well thought out. Adressing balance issues and imposing sensible limits.. Im for that
The biggest problem I see with this system is that it is too complicated to be a short term fix, and too inflexible in some ways to be a good long term fix.
I want to give some thoughts on this, but I'm too tired now to think my comments through adequately. Hopefully later I can make a more informed post.
I want to give some thoughts on this, but I'm too tired now to think my comments through adequately. Hopefully later I can make a more informed post.
Quick edit to the top post, I didnt make it clear that the engine mods would be optional, not required. I actually dont see the engine mods becoming availible until maybe level 3. (level 3 in what skill would depend on the mod)
@Soltis; I await your comments.
@Soltis; I await your comments.
I'd suggest renaming them from "light/medium/heavy" into "slow/normal/fast" engines, since although their massess are different, they don't cause different thrust, so their considerations per-ship isn't differing that much.
Are effects of mods accumulative, or are they separated bonuses?
Ie:
Slot 1: Accelerator
Slot 2: Accelerator
would that give you 2*(0.2 * Accel)+Accel = 294
or would it give you 1.2 * ( 1.2 * Accel ) = 302.4
in boost? (not that interesting in this example, but with static tradeoffs, the percentages and their order will change a lot. )
I figure that if they are cumulative, we're going to see some mighty.. interesting, ships.
Are effects of mods accumulative, or are they separated bonuses?
Ie:
Slot 1: Accelerator
Slot 2: Accelerator
would that give you 2*(0.2 * Accel)+Accel = 294
or would it give you 1.2 * ( 1.2 * Accel ) = 302.4
in boost? (not that interesting in this example, but with static tradeoffs, the percentages and their order will change a lot. )
I figure that if they are cumulative, we're going to see some mighty.. interesting, ships.
Engines renamed in response to spiders post (i like that)
The effects stack directly, with all modifications being added to each other before they are applied to the base attributes of the engine. EG a ship with 2 accel mods has an effective +40% accel, -10/-20 speed, and no change in turbo efficiency. Meaning that if the base ship with no mods can go from 0m/s-100m/s in 10 seconds, with the 2 accel mods it will go from 0m/s-100m/s in 6 seconds, 40% faster.
Keep in mind that the only ships that i forsee being able to stack 2 bonuses are the (current) heaviest ships in the game. A Prom with 2 accel mods is probably still not going to accelerate as fast as a valk with a basic engine because of the mass difference. (a 9k mass ship accellerating 40%faster is still going to accelerate at the same rate as if it was a ship with ~5000mass, which is still slower than a valk)
I would also like to mention that every engine and attribute here could also be classed as fitting in a "fighter" port. Then as larger ships get added to the game, engines could be scaled up with a similar range of engines for "corvette" class ships, and "escort" ships, and "cruiser, Battlewagon, Dreadnaught" class ships, etc etc.
The effects stack directly, with all modifications being added to each other before they are applied to the base attributes of the engine. EG a ship with 2 accel mods has an effective +40% accel, -10/-20 speed, and no change in turbo efficiency. Meaning that if the base ship with no mods can go from 0m/s-100m/s in 10 seconds, with the 2 accel mods it will go from 0m/s-100m/s in 6 seconds, 40% faster.
Keep in mind that the only ships that i forsee being able to stack 2 bonuses are the (current) heaviest ships in the game. A Prom with 2 accel mods is probably still not going to accelerate as fast as a valk with a basic engine because of the mass difference. (a 9k mass ship accellerating 40%faster is still going to accelerate at the same rate as if it was a ship with ~5000mass, which is still slower than a valk)
I would also like to mention that every engine and attribute here could also be classed as fitting in a "fighter" port. Then as larger ships get added to the game, engines could be scaled up with a similar range of engines for "corvette" class ships, and "escort" ships, and "cruiser, Battlewagon, Dreadnaught" class ships, etc etc.
Great thoughts, and I can't see anything wrong with them... Having all the choices between engines and mods would really add alot to your choice of ship, and might let the Centaur drop the name of "flying coffin" with 2 top speed mods..
Once again, great post. Any comments from our devoted devs? :P
Once again, great post. Any comments from our devoted devs? :P
okay, that takes out one concern.
I'm a bit worried on the effect of the negible mass of the free engine though, since that one just might be very very nice for a fight or two on a light ship with an accelerator bonus.... No mass sends fex. the valk off on an even more interesting spin. Hmm. I guess the chase value drops completely though, which might be as well. :) at 95 m/s even a normal boosting ship will reach it in no-time... But it would be really fun to test.
I'm a bit worried on the effect of the negible mass of the free engine though, since that one just might be very very nice for a fight or two on a light ship with an accelerator bonus.... No mass sends fex. the valk off on an even more interesting spin. Hmm. I guess the chase value drops completely though, which might be as well. :) at 95 m/s even a normal boosting ship will reach it in no-time... But it would be really fun to test.
I think your ideas are extremely well thought out and thorough. The idea has some huge gains as I see it.
1) fix the hiddious combat scene now in place
2) add more diversity and player customization
If this was joined with other ideas in ship customization (there are many varieties to choose from on this forum) I think it would have some real potential.
I think the 5000m jump may be a bit too much, but it would have to be tested in game because number wise it looks ok.
As for work, I don't think this would take all that much work, more then your other ideas perhaps but not an excessive amount.
Add 1 port type to game and ships
Rename and re-add engines to player availablity.
Change some engine numbers around.
The only thing that may take awhile would be the jump differences.
(edit- I don't mean it would be done in a day or two, but not a month or two either.)
1) fix the hiddious combat scene now in place
2) add more diversity and player customization
If this was joined with other ideas in ship customization (there are many varieties to choose from on this forum) I think it would have some real potential.
I think the 5000m jump may be a bit too much, but it would have to be tested in game because number wise it looks ok.
As for work, I don't think this would take all that much work, more then your other ideas perhaps but not an excessive amount.
Add 1 port type to game and ships
Rename and re-add engines to player availablity.
Change some engine numbers around.
The only thing that may take awhile would be the jump differences.
(edit- I don't mean it would be done in a day or two, but not a month or two either.)
@Spider, I dont think very many people would try to fight with a free engine because of the rediculous low speed, And i needed some way to make it less tedious for noobs to travel, without giving ships that mass less then the bus a huge advantage.
@durgia, I'm also not totally sure about the 5K distance, but its a mathematical progression.
At a loaded weight of 10,000 mass A ship with the Slow engine jumps at 3000, a ship with the normal engine jumps at 3500, and a ship with the fast engine jumps at a distance of 5250. the time it takes to travel those repsective distances (at full speed the whole way) are 16.75seconds, 19.44seconds, and 26.25seconds respectively. making the slow engine a better choice for travel timewise for lighter ships.
At a weight of 20,000 mass A ship with the Slow engine jumps at 4000, a ship with the normal engine jumps at 4000, and a ship with the fast engine jumps at a distance of 5500. the time it takes to travel those repsective distances (at full speed the whole way) are 25seconds, 22.22seconds, and 27.5seconds respectively. making the normal engine a better choice for travel timewise for midweight to heavy ships.
In order for the above to be true, the fast engine had to have a higher base jump distance than a mere 4000. As a matter of fact its not until you hit approx 30,000 mass (a centaur fully loaded with CtC cargo) that the heavy engine becomes the best choice timewise for travel. it is however, potentially a better engine for intercepting a target due to its higher speed.
@durgia, I'm also not totally sure about the 5K distance, but its a mathematical progression.
At a loaded weight of 10,000 mass A ship with the Slow engine jumps at 3000, a ship with the normal engine jumps at 3500, and a ship with the fast engine jumps at a distance of 5250. the time it takes to travel those repsective distances (at full speed the whole way) are 16.75seconds, 19.44seconds, and 26.25seconds respectively. making the slow engine a better choice for travel timewise for lighter ships.
At a weight of 20,000 mass A ship with the Slow engine jumps at 4000, a ship with the normal engine jumps at 4000, and a ship with the fast engine jumps at a distance of 5500. the time it takes to travel those repsective distances (at full speed the whole way) are 25seconds, 22.22seconds, and 27.5seconds respectively. making the normal engine a better choice for travel timewise for midweight to heavy ships.
In order for the above to be true, the fast engine had to have a higher base jump distance than a mere 4000. As a matter of fact its not until you hit approx 30,000 mass (a centaur fully loaded with CtC cargo) that the heavy engine becomes the best choice timewise for travel. it is however, potentially a better engine for intercepting a target due to its higher speed.
Ahh, yes! That was the thing that was brewing in my head for this time ;)
How do they compare with chase/load times across multiple sectors? That was something that I'd want to explore some, but I think thats only doable if there is a test implementation..
*hint hint* somewhat experienced interceptor/heavy fighter volounteering to do testing.
How do they compare with chase/load times across multiple sectors? That was something that I'd want to explore some, but I think thats only doable if there is a test implementation..
*hint hint* somewhat experienced interceptor/heavy fighter volounteering to do testing.
Just an additional note from me:
I would like if we could have some 'Standby-Power' usage, i.e. a S)mall port energy weapon uses 5e/s while in standby, a L)arge port energy weapon uses 10e/s standby power. Other Weapons could be at 3e/s (6e/s for Large), so someone on a transport mission may decide to drop weapons to gain additional battery power (turbo time, perhaps higher speed)
I would like if we could have some 'Standby-Power' usage, i.e. a S)mall port energy weapon uses 5e/s while in standby, a L)arge port energy weapon uses 10e/s standby power. Other Weapons could be at 3e/s (6e/s for Large), so someone on a transport mission may decide to drop weapons to gain additional battery power (turbo time, perhaps higher speed)
weapons currently use 0 energy when not used, I don't think adding energy usage to nonfiring weapons would be a good idea. It is a totally seperate topic though and does not really belong in the discussion on how to fix the ships/battery combo.
soltis, were you going to comment on this?
I'll try to hack out a post tonight. Been busy.
I'll edit this post with whatever comments I work out.
Okay, here's what I'm aware of thus far. I really think having a universal engine schema for all ships is flawed. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the basic reason is that, quite frankly, the same engine that would make a Cent competive in any way in terms of acceleration would make a Valk faster than a cheetah on PCP. There's a good logical explanation, too. Engines are pretty mated to car bodies these days(check out how little room is unused under the hood). Ship engines would be even more so mated to the ships in question, ESPECIALLY when you consider that with a car it doesn't really 'hurt' to, say, cut a hole in the hood to let the top of the engine stick out. With a spaceship, that would not work quite so well.
What is really needed, as a long term solution, is one of the following things:
Engine types(different actual implimentations or even different actual propulsion methods), where each ship would have one or more(or maybe no) engine of each type. So, let's say we engine type 1, 2, and 3. Now, the Valk model(s) of any of these engine types is going to be focused on light weight and small size, since the Valk is both small and fast. The Cent version(s) of each of these engine types would be more concerned with raw power. The Centaur is not a light ship, and it's very big, so what it needs is POWER. Contrast this with the Centurion, which, while very light and fast, obviously dedicates a far larger portion of its actual mass to engines(just look at the size of them; they're about as big as the rest of the ship) than the Valk, and thus its engines would probably be heavier, but have insane amounts of acceleration, and maybe better efficiency while turboing(This 'turbo efficiency' concept ties into something else I'll go into later).
Since each of these engine types would have different native strengths, each ship's implimentation(s) of than engine would reflect those strengths. Need high top speed and energy efficiency, but don't care if acceleration is poor? Take type 1. Need extreme amounts of maneouverability(and thus light weight), combined with high acceleration, but don't plan to chase anyone(maybe for a dogfighter)? Take type 2. Need high stats all around, but don't care if your engine weighs a ton? Take type 3. Those strength/weaknesses were just examples I came up with off the top of my head, and prolly not terribly good ones, but you get the idea. Each ship would have an area of focus, and implimentations of these engine types would allow you to accentuate whatever aspect of that focus you need most, or balance out the strengths of the ship for a well rounded machine.
Another idea is to set up engine classes, instead of actually having ship-specific models. I like ship-specific models a LOT, but this is an alternative if that idea is too hard to impliment. This is a proposed scheme, but not a perfect one by any means:
EC: Med
Centurion: S-heavy
Wraith: Large
Hornet: Med
Atlas: Large
Cent: Very large
Rag: Very large
Maud: Small
Valk: Small
Prom: Very Large
Vult: Small
Hog: Med
Each class of engine would have ships that could use it. For example, the small class engine is just that - small. It's powerful for its size, but it's designed to not push around a lot of weight - or, in the case of the Maud, there're about 6 of them strapped on. The med. engine is run of the mill, ordinary, etc. in terms of size and weight. The large engine is for larger ships that are heavy enough to need the extra power. Very large engines are for ships that need crushing amounts of power just to get out of the docking bay. (With the exception of the Centurion, which is basically a really big engine with a gun glued to the front). There would be several (Maybe 2-5) engines of each class, giving some variety, and allowing fine tuning. There might be some 'clearly worse' engines, but these would be 'valu-jet' type engines, and the good ones would be available at reasonable licence levels, so the only reason to use the poorer ones would be to save a buck.
Both of these ideas rely on the following adaptation made to the game: a turbo meter.
The turbo meter would, in effect, be a secondary energy meter. It would empty as the ship turboed, and it would drain the battery as it filled. For this to have proper strategic usefulness, there would need to be a way to control how fast it drained energy off the battery, if at all. In other words, you should be able to decide whether to not recharge the meter at ALL, giving you a quick boost, but still allowing you to use your battery to fire weapons(but having to return to normal speed while it recharged); or put ALL of your generator output into recharging it, allowing you to recharge the turbo meter as you ran. Or anything in between; being able to put in 50% of your energy output would half the rate your energy meter recharged, but would also recharge your turbo meter - albeit at half the max rate - so you could pursue a greater distance, but have to conserve shots.
Of course, only one or two engine/battery combos per class/ship would be able to recharge the turbo fast enough to turbo for a terribly long period of time(NONE would be able to turbo forever, just a 'good while'; enough to prevent ion storms from being suicide), and these would probably have disadvantages such as poor top speed, or extremely low acceleration.
To address the warp issue: there would still be a minimum distance to warp, but much lower. Maybe 1000 meters or 1500. Since some WHs are actually further than that away from the nearest roid, I propose another change: make WHs an "object" in their own right. I mean, they ARE a gravitational anomaly, right? Makes sense you'd have to get away from them before using any sort of jump technology. This would mean you'd always have to go at least 1000 or 1500 meters after a WH jump to be able to leave the sector, which still provides plenty of time for ambushes/pirate attacks/blockades.
In addition to the minimum distance, in order to jump, you'd need to have BOTH your energy and turbo meter either full or above a certain level. This would mean that you couldn't turbo away and then jump, because your energy reserves would be at ZERO until you sat around and let your battery recharge. This would mean that while traders could get far enough away from objects to warp very easily, they would not be able to desperately put all their energy into running, gain a TINY headstart on the pirate/ambusher/whatever, and jump the instant they got far enough away; they would need to sit and wait a certain amount of time(preferably the turbo meter would have a much higher capacity than the energy meter; it would drain relatively slowly - maybe twice as fast as the heavy battery drains now while turboing - but recharging it would also be slow). I can also see this adding a LOT of excitement to the chase. The pirate catches up, but has to desperately try to blow the trader out of the water before they recharge for the jump, but has the advantage that the heavily-laden trader can't run at all if he wants to jump anytime soon. The trader would have to maneouvre as well as he could, maybe harassing the pirate with whatever weapons he has(remember, more weapons for the trader means less headstart means the pirate has more time to eliminate the trader), and hope his engines warm up before his ship disintegrates.
I really think that the ideas I have here allow more flexibility than what you propose, Spellcast, and also introduce more strategic gameplay options, while making traders able to travel long distances without a huge 5KM headache.
I'll edit this post with whatever comments I work out.
Okay, here's what I'm aware of thus far. I really think having a universal engine schema for all ships is flawed. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the basic reason is that, quite frankly, the same engine that would make a Cent competive in any way in terms of acceleration would make a Valk faster than a cheetah on PCP. There's a good logical explanation, too. Engines are pretty mated to car bodies these days(check out how little room is unused under the hood). Ship engines would be even more so mated to the ships in question, ESPECIALLY when you consider that with a car it doesn't really 'hurt' to, say, cut a hole in the hood to let the top of the engine stick out. With a spaceship, that would not work quite so well.
What is really needed, as a long term solution, is one of the following things:
Engine types(different actual implimentations or even different actual propulsion methods), where each ship would have one or more(or maybe no) engine of each type. So, let's say we engine type 1, 2, and 3. Now, the Valk model(s) of any of these engine types is going to be focused on light weight and small size, since the Valk is both small and fast. The Cent version(s) of each of these engine types would be more concerned with raw power. The Centaur is not a light ship, and it's very big, so what it needs is POWER. Contrast this with the Centurion, which, while very light and fast, obviously dedicates a far larger portion of its actual mass to engines(just look at the size of them; they're about as big as the rest of the ship) than the Valk, and thus its engines would probably be heavier, but have insane amounts of acceleration, and maybe better efficiency while turboing(This 'turbo efficiency' concept ties into something else I'll go into later).
Since each of these engine types would have different native strengths, each ship's implimentation(s) of than engine would reflect those strengths. Need high top speed and energy efficiency, but don't care if acceleration is poor? Take type 1. Need extreme amounts of maneouverability(and thus light weight), combined with high acceleration, but don't plan to chase anyone(maybe for a dogfighter)? Take type 2. Need high stats all around, but don't care if your engine weighs a ton? Take type 3. Those strength/weaknesses were just examples I came up with off the top of my head, and prolly not terribly good ones, but you get the idea. Each ship would have an area of focus, and implimentations of these engine types would allow you to accentuate whatever aspect of that focus you need most, or balance out the strengths of the ship for a well rounded machine.
Another idea is to set up engine classes, instead of actually having ship-specific models. I like ship-specific models a LOT, but this is an alternative if that idea is too hard to impliment. This is a proposed scheme, but not a perfect one by any means:
EC: Med
Centurion: S-heavy
Wraith: Large
Hornet: Med
Atlas: Large
Cent: Very large
Rag: Very large
Maud: Small
Valk: Small
Prom: Very Large
Vult: Small
Hog: Med
Each class of engine would have ships that could use it. For example, the small class engine is just that - small. It's powerful for its size, but it's designed to not push around a lot of weight - or, in the case of the Maud, there're about 6 of them strapped on. The med. engine is run of the mill, ordinary, etc. in terms of size and weight. The large engine is for larger ships that are heavy enough to need the extra power. Very large engines are for ships that need crushing amounts of power just to get out of the docking bay. (With the exception of the Centurion, which is basically a really big engine with a gun glued to the front). There would be several (Maybe 2-5) engines of each class, giving some variety, and allowing fine tuning. There might be some 'clearly worse' engines, but these would be 'valu-jet' type engines, and the good ones would be available at reasonable licence levels, so the only reason to use the poorer ones would be to save a buck.
Both of these ideas rely on the following adaptation made to the game: a turbo meter.
The turbo meter would, in effect, be a secondary energy meter. It would empty as the ship turboed, and it would drain the battery as it filled. For this to have proper strategic usefulness, there would need to be a way to control how fast it drained energy off the battery, if at all. In other words, you should be able to decide whether to not recharge the meter at ALL, giving you a quick boost, but still allowing you to use your battery to fire weapons(but having to return to normal speed while it recharged); or put ALL of your generator output into recharging it, allowing you to recharge the turbo meter as you ran. Or anything in between; being able to put in 50% of your energy output would half the rate your energy meter recharged, but would also recharge your turbo meter - albeit at half the max rate - so you could pursue a greater distance, but have to conserve shots.
Of course, only one or two engine/battery combos per class/ship would be able to recharge the turbo fast enough to turbo for a terribly long period of time(NONE would be able to turbo forever, just a 'good while'; enough to prevent ion storms from being suicide), and these would probably have disadvantages such as poor top speed, or extremely low acceleration.
To address the warp issue: there would still be a minimum distance to warp, but much lower. Maybe 1000 meters or 1500. Since some WHs are actually further than that away from the nearest roid, I propose another change: make WHs an "object" in their own right. I mean, they ARE a gravitational anomaly, right? Makes sense you'd have to get away from them before using any sort of jump technology. This would mean you'd always have to go at least 1000 or 1500 meters after a WH jump to be able to leave the sector, which still provides plenty of time for ambushes/pirate attacks/blockades.
In addition to the minimum distance, in order to jump, you'd need to have BOTH your energy and turbo meter either full or above a certain level. This would mean that you couldn't turbo away and then jump, because your energy reserves would be at ZERO until you sat around and let your battery recharge. This would mean that while traders could get far enough away from objects to warp very easily, they would not be able to desperately put all their energy into running, gain a TINY headstart on the pirate/ambusher/whatever, and jump the instant they got far enough away; they would need to sit and wait a certain amount of time(preferably the turbo meter would have a much higher capacity than the energy meter; it would drain relatively slowly - maybe twice as fast as the heavy battery drains now while turboing - but recharging it would also be slow). I can also see this adding a LOT of excitement to the chase. The pirate catches up, but has to desperately try to blow the trader out of the water before they recharge for the jump, but has the advantage that the heavily-laden trader can't run at all if he wants to jump anytime soon. The trader would have to maneouvre as well as he could, maybe harassing the pirate with whatever weapons he has(remember, more weapons for the trader means less headstart means the pirate has more time to eliminate the trader), and hope his engines warm up before his ship disintegrates.
I really think that the ideas I have here allow more flexibility than what you propose, Spellcast, and also introduce more strategic gameplay options, while making traders able to travel long distances without a huge 5KM headache.
Another tweak is that coming out of WHs or jumps would need not to take your energy reserves down below the threshold at which you can't jump again(or only take them a little bit below that) because if you came out of a jump with empty energy reserves, you'd be unable to jump again to another sector to lose pursuit. (Tweaking numbers involved here could REALLY affect how 'fun' this idea is for everyone - I won't pretend getting the balance right will be an overnight thing, but it would really kick ass once it's achieved.)
The main thing I have against your proposal, Soltis, is the complexity of the userinterface.
Also, how to redo theese would make the game even more unbalanced. In the terms of say a Strike, you first have to intercept. this requires high and long boost speeds.
after that, you -immediately- need high acceleration and manouverability in a strike fight, this means short bursts of turbo, much weapon focus of the energy (ie, no turbo recharge, basically)
Follow this, there is a getaway, where you have a slow buildup of turbo, but high max speed, and fast recover at times.
Toggling theese while ingame would make it all useless again, as it'd just be a thing to have on your scrollwheel and wouldn't change the strategy at all.
Toggling it in a station would hamper the whole gameplay, you end up with an interceptor that can't fight because the turbo is busy draining your battery as you have intercepted, or you end up in a fight with a turbo thats unusable to boost distances with.
Unfortunately, I don't see much point in adding this level of complexity for a near zero gain, and possibly even a hampering of it.
I do like the idea of engies based on shiptypes, which it would seem is what the devs rather did themselves when they locked the engines into the ships. However, this turned out badly due to imbalance more than anything else. (The valk got an engine that is scaled for the centaur and prometheus fex...)
Also, how to redo theese would make the game even more unbalanced. In the terms of say a Strike, you first have to intercept. this requires high and long boost speeds.
after that, you -immediately- need high acceleration and manouverability in a strike fight, this means short bursts of turbo, much weapon focus of the energy (ie, no turbo recharge, basically)
Follow this, there is a getaway, where you have a slow buildup of turbo, but high max speed, and fast recover at times.
Toggling theese while ingame would make it all useless again, as it'd just be a thing to have on your scrollwheel and wouldn't change the strategy at all.
Toggling it in a station would hamper the whole gameplay, you end up with an interceptor that can't fight because the turbo is busy draining your battery as you have intercepted, or you end up in a fight with a turbo thats unusable to boost distances with.
Unfortunately, I don't see much point in adding this level of complexity for a near zero gain, and possibly even a hampering of it.
I do like the idea of engies based on shiptypes, which it would seem is what the devs rather did themselves when they locked the engines into the ships. However, this turned out badly due to imbalance more than anything else. (The valk got an engine that is scaled for the centaur and prometheus fex...)
"The main thing I have against your proposal, Soltis, is the complexity of the userinterface."
It's relatively straightforward. Second meter, visually distinct from the energy meter, to show turbo level. Two new buttons, one to increase energy allocation to turbo, one to decrease.
"Also, how to redo theese would make the game even more unbalanced. In the terms of say a Strike, you first have to intercept. this requires high and long boost speeds."
By strike, I assume you mean an interceptor.
"after that, you -immediately- need high acceleration and manouverability in a strike fight, this means short bursts of turbo, much weapon focus of the energy (ie, no turbo recharge, basically)"
You're not using an interceptor to dogfight, I hope? That's not what it's made to do. It's made to chase things down and kill things(like traders and transports), possibly as they continue to run. Trying to take on a fleet of Valks in an interceptor is, well, rather stupid.
Plus, you don't account for the possibility of someone conserving their energy. I routinely save my shots for only when I think I'll hit. I'm not blowing plasma all over creation, and that sort of gunspamming tactic should not be rewarded.
"Follow this, there is a getaway, where you have a slow buildup of turbo, but high max speed, and fast recover at times."
"Toggling theese while ingame would make it all useless again, as it'd just be a thing to have on your scrollwheel and wouldn't change the strategy at all."
So giving players choices in battle about how to dynamically allocate their energy use would limit choices? I somehow doubt this. I think having the ability to decide on the fly what tradeoffs to make(Use turbo in combat, or save in case I have to run or chase them? Use lots of energy to recharge the turbo, or very little, so I can shoot more?) would add a DESPERATELY needed element of strategy to the game. Right now, reflexes and experience are the deciding factors. Coherent strategy and good resource management are both essentially not present in VO.
"Toggling it in a station would hamper the whole gameplay, you end up with an interceptor that can't fight because the turbo is busy draining your battery as you have intercepted, or you end up in a fight with a turbo thats unusable to boost distances with."
I agree that having to go to the station to change energy allocation is retarded. I meant it should be something done on the fly.
"Unfortunately, I don't see much point in adding this level of complexity for a near zero gain, and possibly even a hampering of it."
I think there is great benefit to be had. Especially in the complexifying of combat dynamics.
"I do like the idea of engies based on shiptypes, which it would seem is what the devs rather did themselves when they locked the engines into the ships. However, this turned out badly due to imbalance more than anything else. (The valk got an engine that is scaled for the centaur and prometheus fex...)"
That's why having weight-based and size-based classes is a good thing. The Valk is a small ship, and can only equip the smallest class of engines. The only weird exception is the Maud, which obviously uses a whole bunch of tiny engines, and the Centurion, which is comprosed of over 50% engine by mass. Having ship-specific engines would allow even greater control of the devs' part, and thus allow them to that much more fight imbalance.
It's relatively straightforward. Second meter, visually distinct from the energy meter, to show turbo level. Two new buttons, one to increase energy allocation to turbo, one to decrease.
"Also, how to redo theese would make the game even more unbalanced. In the terms of say a Strike, you first have to intercept. this requires high and long boost speeds."
By strike, I assume you mean an interceptor.
"after that, you -immediately- need high acceleration and manouverability in a strike fight, this means short bursts of turbo, much weapon focus of the energy (ie, no turbo recharge, basically)"
You're not using an interceptor to dogfight, I hope? That's not what it's made to do. It's made to chase things down and kill things(like traders and transports), possibly as they continue to run. Trying to take on a fleet of Valks in an interceptor is, well, rather stupid.
Plus, you don't account for the possibility of someone conserving their energy. I routinely save my shots for only when I think I'll hit. I'm not blowing plasma all over creation, and that sort of gunspamming tactic should not be rewarded.
"Follow this, there is a getaway, where you have a slow buildup of turbo, but high max speed, and fast recover at times."
"Toggling theese while ingame would make it all useless again, as it'd just be a thing to have on your scrollwheel and wouldn't change the strategy at all."
So giving players choices in battle about how to dynamically allocate their energy use would limit choices? I somehow doubt this. I think having the ability to decide on the fly what tradeoffs to make(Use turbo in combat, or save in case I have to run or chase them? Use lots of energy to recharge the turbo, or very little, so I can shoot more?) would add a DESPERATELY needed element of strategy to the game. Right now, reflexes and experience are the deciding factors. Coherent strategy and good resource management are both essentially not present in VO.
"Toggling it in a station would hamper the whole gameplay, you end up with an interceptor that can't fight because the turbo is busy draining your battery as you have intercepted, or you end up in a fight with a turbo thats unusable to boost distances with."
I agree that having to go to the station to change energy allocation is retarded. I meant it should be something done on the fly.
"Unfortunately, I don't see much point in adding this level of complexity for a near zero gain, and possibly even a hampering of it."
I think there is great benefit to be had. Especially in the complexifying of combat dynamics.
"I do like the idea of engies based on shiptypes, which it would seem is what the devs rather did themselves when they locked the engines into the ships. However, this turned out badly due to imbalance more than anything else. (The valk got an engine that is scaled for the centaur and prometheus fex...)"
That's why having weight-based and size-based classes is a good thing. The Valk is a small ship, and can only equip the smallest class of engines. The only weird exception is the Maud, which obviously uses a whole bunch of tiny engines, and the Centurion, which is comprosed of over 50% engine by mass. Having ship-specific engines would allow even greater control of the devs' part, and thus allow them to that much more fight imbalance.
ok soltis, you have taken pretty much the same track as the devs have been talking about for a while, with the exception of the power management yuo have laid out. the disadvantage to this, IMO is that they then need to specifically tweak each engine's basic stats to each ship, which is time consuming and the main reason why it hasnt yet been done.
The power management is however an interesting proposal, i'll have to look at it when i have a bit more time to think about it.
The other thing that I find logically problematicall about that path, is that IMO we only really have 2 types of ships in the game at present, Fighter/Attack craft, and Small civilian transports. All of the ships are in the same size range, and the game is suppose to encompass anything from the size we are at now, all the way up to something the size of the old frigate (which was really a battlecruiser at 800Meters+ in length)
I have no problem with the general concept of the centaur having a poor acceleration, its not supposed to accelerate fast, if its top speed were limited below that of the top speed of a fighter/interceptor it would be fine. The main difficulty is that every ship has the same top speed, and allmost all of the engines are modeled after the old heavy engine in terms of acceleration and thrust. This was done because the other engines provided significantly less maneuvering ability.
The power management is however an interesting proposal, i'll have to look at it when i have a bit more time to think about it.
The other thing that I find logically problematicall about that path, is that IMO we only really have 2 types of ships in the game at present, Fighter/Attack craft, and Small civilian transports. All of the ships are in the same size range, and the game is suppose to encompass anything from the size we are at now, all the way up to something the size of the old frigate (which was really a battlecruiser at 800Meters+ in length)
I have no problem with the general concept of the centaur having a poor acceleration, its not supposed to accelerate fast, if its top speed were limited below that of the top speed of a fighter/interceptor it would be fine. The main difficulty is that every ship has the same top speed, and allmost all of the engines are modeled after the old heavy engine in terms of acceleration and thrust. This was done because the other engines provided significantly less maneuvering ability.
It's time consuming, but I'd rather wait and have an optimal solution than get something out the door quick that will cause problems down the road.
I was going to suggest, but forgot, that some of the ship models be resized a bit, to better reflect their proper mass.
I think having more actual TYPES would be useful, even if they are the same size. The Centurion is pretty much useless, since there are plenty of other ships that do what it does, only better. Take the prompt given by the graphics, though, and make it an offensively weak, but insanely fast interceptor, and you have a pirate ship that would not present as big a threat as a valk with neut-3s, but that a trader would have to worry about escaping from.
Ships need different max. speeds dependent on their roles. This needs to be treated carefully, but basically, the max speed of a ship, especially its turbo velocity, should differ from ship to ship, since then you actually have to use a ship how it's meant to be used. There needs to be wiggle room; I am not suggesting we overspecialize, but there needs to be clear purpose to these different models.
This would also allow more balance - I don't think the Valk, for example, should have a high top speed. It's a light assault craft, really, and needs to be designed in a way that reflects that. Give it good armor, good armament, and excellent maneouverability, but don't make it able to outrun anything that wants to get away. It would then make a SUPERB dogfighting/escort craft, or(later) assault craft against slower moving targets(like bases or cap ships).
In other words, I think all ships should have strengths and weaknesses, not that all ships should be different flavors of the same multi-role craft.
I like the idea of having to recharge your turbo/energy before jumping, because then you can make the Centaur, for example, still have a reasonable top speed, but make it so that if it goes all out it will have to recharge, thus giving pirates a chance to catch up.
I think that the baselines for this whole concept I have would need to be adjusted with care to prevent the sort of nightmare Spider was talking about, but as long as this was thought through, it would be really cool. Especially if implimentation was deliberately open-ended, so that more specialized(not better overall, just better at one or two things) craft could be introduced as faction specific models later on to create the badly needed ship variation I've talked about before.
Another thing to contemplate: batteries should probably be renamed to generators, or reactors, and tuned in a similar way, because that way assault craft could have the energy production to power their massive armaments, without allowing another infiniboost fiasco to occur.
Plus the fact that there are only FIVE batteries in existence in the game really sucks.
I was going to suggest, but forgot, that some of the ship models be resized a bit, to better reflect their proper mass.
I think having more actual TYPES would be useful, even if they are the same size. The Centurion is pretty much useless, since there are plenty of other ships that do what it does, only better. Take the prompt given by the graphics, though, and make it an offensively weak, but insanely fast interceptor, and you have a pirate ship that would not present as big a threat as a valk with neut-3s, but that a trader would have to worry about escaping from.
Ships need different max. speeds dependent on their roles. This needs to be treated carefully, but basically, the max speed of a ship, especially its turbo velocity, should differ from ship to ship, since then you actually have to use a ship how it's meant to be used. There needs to be wiggle room; I am not suggesting we overspecialize, but there needs to be clear purpose to these different models.
This would also allow more balance - I don't think the Valk, for example, should have a high top speed. It's a light assault craft, really, and needs to be designed in a way that reflects that. Give it good armor, good armament, and excellent maneouverability, but don't make it able to outrun anything that wants to get away. It would then make a SUPERB dogfighting/escort craft, or(later) assault craft against slower moving targets(like bases or cap ships).
In other words, I think all ships should have strengths and weaknesses, not that all ships should be different flavors of the same multi-role craft.
I like the idea of having to recharge your turbo/energy before jumping, because then you can make the Centaur, for example, still have a reasonable top speed, but make it so that if it goes all out it will have to recharge, thus giving pirates a chance to catch up.
I think that the baselines for this whole concept I have would need to be adjusted with care to prevent the sort of nightmare Spider was talking about, but as long as this was thought through, it would be really cool. Especially if implimentation was deliberately open-ended, so that more specialized(not better overall, just better at one or two things) craft could be introduced as faction specific models later on to create the badly needed ship variation I've talked about before.
Another thing to contemplate: batteries should probably be renamed to generators, or reactors, and tuned in a similar way, because that way assault craft could have the energy production to power their massive armaments, without allowing another infiniboost fiasco to occur.
Plus the fact that there are only FIVE batteries in existence in the game really sucks.