Forums » General
On Why the Orion and IBG Centurions Shouldn't Be Nerfed...
I'll preface this little article by saying that I do not fly either of the ships, so this is completely unbiased.
I have noticed that many players have complained that the Orion and IBG centurions are too good and need to be nerfed. I, in fact, was one of these players, and I believed that these ships needed to be taken out of the game even. However, I looked at the stats for these ships and realized that they aren't as unfair as everyone (including me) thought. I like to see things fair in this game, so I felt it right to just straighten these facts out and get my point across that these ships are perfectly fair. Again, I don't fly either of these ships, and don't ever plan to use them.
In my opinion, the best and only way to judge ships is by comparing them to others. Also, I don't buy any of the "get used to it" arguments, so I'll never say "get used to the Centurions" in this post. I'll prove all my points using the actual ship statistics that I got from the Wiki site on VO (see news).
First, the stats (IBG)(Orion):
Armor: (7200)(7000)
Cargo: (4)(6)
Weapons: 2 Small
Mass: (3000)(3200)
Length: 10m
Thrust: 230 N
Max Speed: 70 m/s
Spin Torque: 7.0 Nm
Turbo Speed: 240 m/s
Drain: (70/s)(60/s)
So, by looking just at the stats, the ships look pretty good. First, I'll compare the two ships against eachother.
They are pretty much the same. The IBG gains an extra 200 armor and sheds 200 mass compared to the Orion, but drops 2 cargo spaces and gets creamed with a whopping 70 drain, compared to the Orion's 60 drain. Otherwise, the ships are identical. So pretty much they are the same.
Now, alone the ships look good. But I'll compare them to other ships...
1. Valkyrie Rune
The Valkyrie Rune is like the Cents in the sense that it is a light-weight attack ship. However, it requires MUCH higher licenses so therefore is inherently better. However, many of the 'ship shapers,' as I call the players who whine about the ships (Hey, I'm one of 'em, so no shame and no offense =p), now argue truthfully that the Valks have become almost obselete. Keeping that in mind, I'll proceed to compare the Cents and the Rune.
In my opinion, probably the most important comparisons of ships is their Armor to Weight ratio. A light ship should have a high armor to weight ratio, while a heavy ship should have a lower one. The Valk Rune's A:W ratio is 3.16666667, a very good A:W ratio for light ships. The IBG's A:W ratio (it is the better of the two Cents in this situation) is 2.4, much less. And the IBG is the same weight as the Rune, so it's not more maneuvarible. Also, the Rune has obviously more armor, 4 more cargo space, infiniturbo (compared to the IBG's 70 drain), and another small weapons port to boot! Though the Rune does have a lower top turbo and normal speed, and has a much larger surface area, it is still a much better ship than either of the Cents.
2. Vulture Mark IV
Another ship easily comparable to the Cents because it is a light attack ship, the Vulture Mk IV is the best of all vultures, so if the Cents are much better than it, we'd know something is fishy. Note however that the Vulture MkIV is a normal ship and does not require standing to get.
The A:W ratio of the Vulture Mk IV is 2.28; which is better than the Orion A:W ratio of 2.1875 and just less than the IBG. It is slightly heavier, but also has more armor, which makes for the similar A:W ratio. The Vulture MkIV, like each Cent, has 2 small weapons ports, and a max turbo speed of 240 m/s. The Vult IV has a drain of 60 (the most of all vultures) which is the same as the Orion Cent but much better than the IBG. (Note that, though the Drain is the same as the Orion cent, the A:W ratio is better. It the opposite for the IBG. So it is about evens out). It has 5 cargo space, which is smack-dab in the middle of the two Cents. Basically, the Vult. MKIV is the same as the two cents: riding the middle line in between each of their differing stats. Once again, however, note that the vulture is not a unique ship and can be bought by anyone, anywhere with a 4 combat license. Both Cents take some standing-building. With that in mind, the Vult MKIV is knocked just one notch above both Cents, making it a slightly better ship.
As one can see, the Centurions are not at all unfair or cheap. They are much worse than the Valk (which sucks! =p) and about the same as a Vulture MKIV. If anyone has any differing opinion, or would like to get me to post another ship comparison, please tell me!
Thanks for reading all that =p. I tend to write long posts =p.
I have noticed that many players have complained that the Orion and IBG centurions are too good and need to be nerfed. I, in fact, was one of these players, and I believed that these ships needed to be taken out of the game even. However, I looked at the stats for these ships and realized that they aren't as unfair as everyone (including me) thought. I like to see things fair in this game, so I felt it right to just straighten these facts out and get my point across that these ships are perfectly fair. Again, I don't fly either of these ships, and don't ever plan to use them.
In my opinion, the best and only way to judge ships is by comparing them to others. Also, I don't buy any of the "get used to it" arguments, so I'll never say "get used to the Centurions" in this post. I'll prove all my points using the actual ship statistics that I got from the Wiki site on VO (see news).
First, the stats (IBG)(Orion):
Armor: (7200)(7000)
Cargo: (4)(6)
Weapons: 2 Small
Mass: (3000)(3200)
Length: 10m
Thrust: 230 N
Max Speed: 70 m/s
Spin Torque: 7.0 Nm
Turbo Speed: 240 m/s
Drain: (70/s)(60/s)
So, by looking just at the stats, the ships look pretty good. First, I'll compare the two ships against eachother.
They are pretty much the same. The IBG gains an extra 200 armor and sheds 200 mass compared to the Orion, but drops 2 cargo spaces and gets creamed with a whopping 70 drain, compared to the Orion's 60 drain. Otherwise, the ships are identical. So pretty much they are the same.
Now, alone the ships look good. But I'll compare them to other ships...
1. Valkyrie Rune
The Valkyrie Rune is like the Cents in the sense that it is a light-weight attack ship. However, it requires MUCH higher licenses so therefore is inherently better. However, many of the 'ship shapers,' as I call the players who whine about the ships (Hey, I'm one of 'em, so no shame and no offense =p), now argue truthfully that the Valks have become almost obselete. Keeping that in mind, I'll proceed to compare the Cents and the Rune.
In my opinion, probably the most important comparisons of ships is their Armor to Weight ratio. A light ship should have a high armor to weight ratio, while a heavy ship should have a lower one. The Valk Rune's A:W ratio is 3.16666667, a very good A:W ratio for light ships. The IBG's A:W ratio (it is the better of the two Cents in this situation) is 2.4, much less. And the IBG is the same weight as the Rune, so it's not more maneuvarible. Also, the Rune has obviously more armor, 4 more cargo space, infiniturbo (compared to the IBG's 70 drain), and another small weapons port to boot! Though the Rune does have a lower top turbo and normal speed, and has a much larger surface area, it is still a much better ship than either of the Cents.
2. Vulture Mark IV
Another ship easily comparable to the Cents because it is a light attack ship, the Vulture Mk IV is the best of all vultures, so if the Cents are much better than it, we'd know something is fishy. Note however that the Vulture MkIV is a normal ship and does not require standing to get.
The A:W ratio of the Vulture Mk IV is 2.28; which is better than the Orion A:W ratio of 2.1875 and just less than the IBG. It is slightly heavier, but also has more armor, which makes for the similar A:W ratio. The Vulture MkIV, like each Cent, has 2 small weapons ports, and a max turbo speed of 240 m/s. The Vult IV has a drain of 60 (the most of all vultures) which is the same as the Orion Cent but much better than the IBG. (Note that, though the Drain is the same as the Orion cent, the A:W ratio is better. It the opposite for the IBG. So it is about evens out). It has 5 cargo space, which is smack-dab in the middle of the two Cents. Basically, the Vult. MKIV is the same as the two cents: riding the middle line in between each of their differing stats. Once again, however, note that the vulture is not a unique ship and can be bought by anyone, anywhere with a 4 combat license. Both Cents take some standing-building. With that in mind, the Vult MKIV is knocked just one notch above both Cents, making it a slightly better ship.
As one can see, the Centurions are not at all unfair or cheap. They are much worse than the Valk (which sucks! =p) and about the same as a Vulture MKIV. If anyone has any differing opinion, or would like to get me to post another ship comparison, please tell me!
Thanks for reading all that =p. I tend to write long posts =p.
*concurrence*
Although I think the Orion C should go up to 65e drain, or the IBG should come down to 65e drain, or something. Because at 70 drain, the IBG is effectively useless. About 2520m of boosting from 0m/s on a full fast charge battery. Compare that to 5520m of boosting from 0m/s on a full fast charge battery for the Orion Rev C.
Although I think the Orion C should go up to 65e drain, or the IBG should come down to 65e drain, or something. Because at 70 drain, the IBG is effectively useless. About 2520m of boosting from 0m/s on a full fast charge battery. Compare that to 5520m of boosting from 0m/s on a full fast charge battery for the Orion Rev C.
I would like to point out though, that the SVG is the best of all vultures... just sayin.
I would disagree that cents are worse than valks atm. I tested this myself because i was curious. I fought the same pilot several times, some in an IDF valk, some in an IBG cent. The results, each time i was in a cent i destroyed him with near 50% remaining. Each time i was in a valk, i lost miserably. The valk makes a much larger target and can not hold its own against a near equal pilot in a cent... currently. However, the light ship balance is comming up so im sure all this will change soon anyway. I have confidence the devs will make things right. They've done a great job so far and i believe they will continue to.
Incorrect: "And the IBG is the same weight as the Rune, so it's not more maneuvarible."
While they do have the same mass, the Valkyries have lower thrust, so the Valkyries ARE less maneuverable.
http://lemming.localnetsys.com/wiki/doku.php?id=ships:valkyrie
http://lemming.localnetsys.com/wiki/doku.php?id=ships:centurion
[edit]
And because the actual value used in the physics engine for mass is 1/1000 of the what's displayed on the ships stats (see http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/8832#101680 ), the lower thrust has a larger effect than you would at first think.
[/edit]
[edit 2]
That said, I must say I agree that the Cents should NOT be Nerfed. It's just that the Valks need to be made better than they currently are.
[/edit]
While they do have the same mass, the Valkyries have lower thrust, so the Valkyries ARE less maneuverable.
http://lemming.localnetsys.com/wiki/doku.php?id=ships:valkyrie
http://lemming.localnetsys.com/wiki/doku.php?id=ships:centurion
[edit]
And because the actual value used in the physics engine for mass is 1/1000 of the what's displayed on the ships stats (see http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/8832#101680 ), the lower thrust has a larger effect than you would at first think.
[/edit]
[edit 2]
That said, I must say I agree that the Cents should NOT be Nerfed. It's just that the Valks need to be made better than they currently are.
[/edit]
You're right Beolach. The Valks do have slightly less thrust. I had that in my original version of this post, but I accidently clicked 'back' and lost it all. I guess I forgot to put it in again.
Yeah, I just want to say again that I agree with your overall thought, that the Cents shouldn't be nerfed. But that bit about the Cents "are much worse than the Valk" is just so incorrect I couldn't let it by. It's the exact opposite, the Valks are much worse than the Cents.
The following rant is mostly for me to waste time at work, and partly to show that it's much more complicated to determine acceleration (which is a large part of maneuverablity) than just glancing at what has lower mass.
Here's how it (doesn't) work out: a=F/m, where a is acceleration, F is thrust, and m is 1/1000 of the displayed mass. So the Valkyrie Rune would have an acceleration of 70 m/s^2, the IBG has 76.667 m/s^2, and the Rev. C has 71.875 m/s^2. Already the IBG is much better than the Rune, and the Rev. C is slightly better. But we're not done yet! The reason I said it doesn't work out like that, is because we of course don't have constant acceleration - the closer you are to your max speed, the slower your acceleration is. And both the IBG & Rev. C have higher max speeds than the Rune, 70m/s compared to 65m/s. This means that the higher acceleration of the Cents together with their higher max speed makes them MUCH more maneuverable than the Valks.
The following rant is mostly for me to waste time at work, and partly to show that it's much more complicated to determine acceleration (which is a large part of maneuverablity) than just glancing at what has lower mass.
Here's how it (doesn't) work out: a=F/m, where a is acceleration, F is thrust, and m is 1/1000 of the displayed mass. So the Valkyrie Rune would have an acceleration of 70 m/s^2, the IBG has 76.667 m/s^2, and the Rev. C has 71.875 m/s^2. Already the IBG is much better than the Rune, and the Rev. C is slightly better. But we're not done yet! The reason I said it doesn't work out like that, is because we of course don't have constant acceleration - the closer you are to your max speed, the slower your acceleration is. And both the IBG & Rev. C have higher max speeds than the Rune, 70m/s compared to 65m/s. This means that the higher acceleration of the Cents together with their higher max speed makes them MUCH more maneuverable than the Valks.
Very true Beolach. I didn't want to get into the specifics of the thrust and acceleration seeing as though the post was originally about the ships, but you are correct: acceleration is much more complicated than just mass. But for my purposes, I used just mass. Thanks for pointing that out though.
"the mkIV vulture has a drain of 60, the most of all vultures"
not true, the corvus vult has a turbo drain of 70/sec.... a real headache when trying to catch someone in a fight. you catch them, but have no juice for shooting. i imagine the ibg has the same issue.
not true, the corvus vult has a turbo drain of 70/sec.... a real headache when trying to catch someone in a fight. you catch them, but have no juice for shooting. i imagine the ibg has the same issue.
Just be glad it's not 90 anymore.
I thought it was 75? Even with a lower drain, the Vulturius can't maintain its top speed long enough to be useful. The IBG can, however, because it's lighter and can reach the top speed faster.
This is too simplistic.
For instance, you say the valk should be as maneuvrable as the IBG if they have the same mass. The valk has less thrust, and is disc-shaped, whereas the centurion is more rod-shaped...
If the mass distribution is even, then the valk would be out-turned quite easily.
For instance, you say the valk should be as maneuvrable as the IBG if they have the same mass. The valk has less thrust, and is disc-shaped, whereas the centurion is more rod-shaped...
If the mass distribution is even, then the valk would be out-turned quite easily.
I was really let down when I got a valk. It looks like it should be a lot better than it is. That being said, I think that just by increasing the thrust slightly on the valk, it would be made into a good dogfighter. As it is, its low thrust means that it can't manuever nearly well enough to counter its huge profile. I think the Centurions are fine (although the IBG could stand to have a slightly lower drain), but the valks need a boost. They are supposed to be light fighters, so let's give them the thrust to make them effective at that. In their current configuration, I can just about outmanuever one in an Aggresso (when both are fully equipped w/weapons).
These ships should not be nerfed (though the IBG's drain should be dropped to 65,) and here's why. The IBG or the (superior) rev C can be obtained by any player in the game with reasonable levels and, for non-Itani, the willingness to put in a couple hours trading for Orion. This makes it an excellent ship for mid-level players that enables them to hold their own in PvP combat.
However, the Valk is in great need of a rebalance, and by rights should be superior to both the rev C and IBG. If this happens, then it will resume its rightful place as king of the light fighters, and prove a worthy opponent to the Prometheus (which should be nerfed if this doesn't happen.)
However, the Valk is in great need of a rebalance, and by rights should be superior to both the rev C and IBG. If this happens, then it will resume its rightful place as king of the light fighters, and prove a worthy opponent to the Prometheus (which should be nerfed if this doesn't happen.)
/me waits for the devs to say it is balanced, then i will moan.
We really should have an "Opinions" section of the forums. I'm really tired of these threads..
ok, i hear much about thrust.
I wondered as i read about it, how many widths should a ship be able to cover in 5 seconds if you are side strafing from stand still?
I think that an answer to this question will be beneficial in this "thrust" debate.
I wondered as i read about it, how many widths should a ship be able to cover in 5 seconds if you are side strafing from stand still?
I think that an answer to this question will be beneficial in this "thrust" debate.
"I think" (might as well give my opinion since everyone else is) that the ibg's thrust is off set by the fact that it is the most maneuverable ship in the game. Along with the fact that it is the hardest to hit. Well, ok that might not be true. The SVG's skinny profile is a match for it, and if it had the same mass then the svg would be better. So how about we just go with it's the most maneuverable ship. It can accelerate the fastest. I've been caught many times by ibg's so don't give me that "It's drain makes it useless" crap. It's a short range fighter. Tis all. The valk is a long range fighter. Course it's so friggin fat it's useless... tho GREAT for botting.
But that's about it. Anyone who has killed at least a thousand bots with either of em will concur. Or maybe the trick is killing 2 thousand bots untill you reach "true" enlightenment..... :P
But that's about it. Anyone who has killed at least a thousand bots with either of em will concur. Or maybe the trick is killing 2 thousand bots untill you reach "true" enlightenment..... :P
I agree with Kix on his point on the IBG's drain. My original post was about how the cents shouldn't be nerfed...but I also believe they shouldn't be made better. The IBG is (in my opinion) on of the dev's greatest works in terms of ships. It is the ultimate short-range fighter, perfect for quick combat. If it's drain was lowered, it would take away the whole profile of the ship. It is meant to be a quick 'fly in, kill, fly out' ship. The Orion, on the other hand, is a bit more long-range, but with a sacrifice in it's mass and armor. These ships are perfectly balance, and are useful for exactly what they are supposed to be useful for.
My only complaint would be on other ships (such as the valk), but this is not the thread for that, and the devs haven't even rebalanced the light ships yet, so it's no time to complain.
This intention of this string was simply because I was afraid these Cents were gonna be changed when the light ship balace came around (a prediction I got from talking to many players), and I didn't want to see such great ships ("great" being great for it's purpose) be changed.
In my opinion, the best way to balance ships (and the way the devs have done the heavy ones) is to make the ships unique almost; only extremely useful in a few situations, but pretty good overall. If the dev's gave in to all the complaints/suggestions of the players, the variety of ships would all be changed so that each ship is about the same as all the others. And that's no fun!
My only complaint would be on other ships (such as the valk), but this is not the thread for that, and the devs haven't even rebalanced the light ships yet, so it's no time to complain.
This intention of this string was simply because I was afraid these Cents were gonna be changed when the light ship balace came around (a prediction I got from talking to many players), and I didn't want to see such great ships ("great" being great for it's purpose) be changed.
In my opinion, the best way to balance ships (and the way the devs have done the heavy ones) is to make the ships unique almost; only extremely useful in a few situations, but pretty good overall. If the dev's gave in to all the complaints/suggestions of the players, the variety of ships would all be changed so that each ship is about the same as all the others. And that's no fun!