Ok. You golds and reds bitch about our ship. let's try to make it "even".

First, Give all the ships 1 more large port. Next, give the gold special 20 cargo room. Give the Prom 12. (or if it has more, leave it that way.) SO...


Blue's special:
18000/18000 armor
3 S ports
1 L port
6 cargo

Pizza Cutter:
18000/18000
3 S ports
1 L port
20 cargo

Prom:
26000/26000
3 S ports
2 L ports
12 cargo


The gold ship is ment for TRADING. if you guys want a warship, join blue or red. You aren't MENT to fight. if you like fighting, come join blue or red. It's the way the devs wanted it.


Next, guns. First, the rail gun.
Rail gun does 2100 dmg, costs 10c a shot, and takes 10 energy to fire. That is bullshi*. A real rail gun thats TONS of power. I suggest make it 75 or 100 per shot, becuase everyone is linking 3 togeather. Next, make the ammo costs 50 for 1 shot, like it's supposed to be. Leave the damage. Raise the rail gun's cost up a bit though. And lower hte number of shots. So...

Rail gun:
Cost: 5000
Dmg: 2100
Energy: 75 or 100
# of shots: 15 or 20
Cost per shot: 50

Next the rockets. Up the damage!!!!! make them have diversity! liek multiple warheads to pellet a gun in hits or something! trust me, at the moment, they all suck.

Guns need a major revamp. not 1 is worth the cost. High enerey drain blows, and they could do a tiny bit more power.

The charge cannon looks nice. For a gun attached to a capacitor and all, i think we could use a charge meter, and when it's fully charges, it should shoot really fast, really far.

that is all for now.

Ok here is an idea, it requires weapon modularity though
Railgun port
-Output
--1k) 20 energy per shot; pretty slow shot, 200
--2k) 40 energy per shot; normal speed, 400
--3k) 60 energy per shot; very quick speed, 800
-Pellets
--10 per) Low density (low yeild xithricite pellets); short range, 400
--20 per) normal density (xithricite pellets); normal range, 700
--50 per) high density (high yeild xithricite pellets) long range, 1500
-Rail length
--2k) 2 foot; 1 sec loading time, hurls pellets shorter but very fast
--3k) 4 foot; 2 sec loading time, hurls the pellets normaly
--4k) 8 foot; 5 sec loading time, hurls the pellets farther but slower

IF i had that i would jump on high density, 2 foot, and 60 energy. Fast little bugger killing stuff.
The damage would be the same for all combinations, later there would be different pellet sizes like, small, all three sizes, normal, 4ft and 8ft, large, 8ft.
Small being fast but not as painful, normal, what it is now, large, being slower but very painful.

sounds good. can we get a dev in here to tell us their thoughts?

There's no way the Blue advanced fighter should have the same hull integrity as the rest of the other special ships. No way in hell. Unless the maueverability would be reduced for it. It's clear that the Valkyrie is unbalanced. It's going to be fixed somehow.

The Blue has a Fighter, wich means it will be manueverable, and it will have high hull allthough I do agree it should be around 12000/12000

Blue Valk.
12000/12000
2small ports
1 large port
High manueverablility

Gold
16000/16000
2small ports
2 large ports
medium manueverability

Red
22000/22000
3small ports
2 large ports
very low manueverability

My opinion:

Valkyrie - 3 small

Marauder - 3 small, 1 large

Prometheus - 3 small, 2 large

Prometheus should have 3 large, it is meant as a weapons platform, think of swarmers and heat seekrs on that.

Just up the rocket damage... thats all i ask for.... Currently i have seen no-one use rockets anymore cos they simply suck compared to the energy weapons available...

Well.. I wonder about that... See right now, all the blues are using their special ship... whihc only has 3 small ports. IMNSHO the small rockets SHOULD NOT pack as much of a punch as the large ones...

A little while ago, White Magic was doing some nice damage to me with his rockets... (granted in the end, the wart anti valk config worked QUITE well.. :D)

Small Rockets are unguided, slow, you can only carry 8 in a weapon port, they cost 40c EACH!!! and i can only kill a bot and a half by using all of them! They simply have nothing going for them...

are not the special ships supposed to be balanced with the rest of the ships too? With that setup, Urza, you would have to raise all the stats on all the other ships to match the überships.

I dont like the idea of one ship being better than another. Sure, they can be good at different things, but one ship being better than another ship at everything is not good.

For example, I think all the fighters need to be balanced.

Have you ever seen a blue player fly around in a Centurion? No way, they have the valk, so there is no need. You could as well delete every ship except the Valk, since nobody is using anything else.

The valkyrie might use a super durable material that costs a lot and yet is only found in small qunatities, since it is super durable you don't need so much freeing up room for weapon ports and cargo and engine manuvering stuff.

Arolte, your spending WAY too much time on these boards!

I think that the biggest problem with the small rockets is that you can only carry 8 of them. The second biggest problem is that they are relatively slow. The damage is fine. Large weapons should have advantages on small ones.

If the ammunition was up to 12 or 16, you'd still see some people carrying them (as an anti-"anti-Valk Warthog") even after the rail is unnerfed.

As for the special ship, the Mar and the Valk are both excellent craft. I personally don't think that the Mar should be the equal of the Valk in combat unless it is willing to forgo some cargo space, so I don't advice changing it now. For one thing, future ship enhancements may allow it to exchance some of that cargo space for other more combat related features. The Valk is now a well balanced and fun craft. It doesn't need any more advantages (certainly NOT a large port). I'd leave it like it is and concentrate on either improving the Centurian, Warthog, and Wraith, or making a Centurian II, Warthog-B, and Wraith Mark2 available as 'advanced' versions using the same model.

For instance, an improved Centurian might have 6500 hull and 2 weapon slots. A improved Warthog might lose the small slot, but gain 'High' manueverablity and a second large slot. An improved wraith might gain 2000 extra hull and medium manueverablity. An improved Vulture might gain a third small weapon and 1800 more hull. This would give every nation effective and accessible 'fighters', and make all the fighters more balanced with each other including the Valk.

In other words, I basically agree with Nemesis.

The one special that needs significant changes now is the Prom, which could use a second large slot. Otherwise, its hull is no particularly strong advantage considering the vastly superior firepower of the Ragnarok. The Prom may be the only 'special' that isn't that special, and if we are going to leave the Prom balanced versus 'non-special' we ought to balance the Valk by dropping the hull to 8k, and the Maud by dropping its hull to 12k or less.

The availability of ports need to be consistent with the ship models themselves. If you see a ship model with 3 guns, then it should only have 3 ports. It wouldn't make sense to have a ship with 3 ports firing missiles and lasers from all directions. I'm sure the capital ships will provide us with that luxury. But right now that's not a feasible option for the given arsenal of the current beta. In other words, there will eventually be larger ships with more weapons in the future. You're getting way ahead of development and looking at the big picture of what Vendetta will eventually be. Realistically, however, the current open beta only deals with small scale skirmishes against fighters and bombers.

I also believe having advanced versions of the current ships will do nothing but clutter our options. The point of the weapon customization and grouping is so that we CAN adjust the lethality of the ships in accordance with our spending budget. They're trying to aim for a greater variety of ships and capabilities, not the same ships with dozens of different port configurations. If everyone had the option of customizing ports or buying all kinds of different port layouts, the ships would totally lose their uniqueness. That would be a bad thing.

A lot of the above ships are fine as is. Their weapon capabilities match their size and agility. It wouldn't make sense, for example, to allow a small ship like the Warthog to fly around with 2 heavy ports while having the agility of a light fighter. It just doesn't look right. Larger weapons will weigh a lot, therefore the agility would be reduced. And I definitely don't want to see the Warthog turn into another sluggish Hornet type ship just because of this change. All it takes is a little experimentation with weapons and groupings to find the right loadout for you.

Arolte: Normally you have some of the best opinions of anyone on this board, but I can't agree with you this time. Most of your agruments are somewhat spurious.

"The availability of ports need to be consistent with the ship models themselves."

I have no idea how many of the current ship models are going to remain in the final game, if any of them. Even as things stand, ship ports are not perfectly consistent with the ship models themselves. Even with a 'modern' model like the Valkyrie, is it really 'consitant' to have rockets appearing from the same slender gun stalks that produce bolts of energy under a different configuration? Is it consistant with realism the way the Centaurs weapons appear from the 'rear' position, or is it merely good enough for a game?

"If you see a ship model with 3 guns, then it should only have 3 ports."

We aren't at that point now. How many clear 'ports' does a Ragnarok have now?

"It wouldn't make sense to have a ship with 3 ports firing missiles and lasers from all directions."

I'm talking about adding one additional weapon to two models. Don't you think that is a bit of hyberbole?

"I'm sure the capital ships will provide us with that luxury. But right now that's not a feasible option for the given arsenal of the current beta. In other words, there will eventually be larger ships with more weapons in the future."

Again, I'm talking about giving a ship 3 small weapon slots and you make it sound like I'm trying to turn a fighter into a capital ship. We already have a fighter with 3 small weapon slots, what would be wrong with having a slightly inferior but more readily accessible fighter available to everyone with 3 small weapon slots? Remember, I'm BLUE. It's not like I'm whining about my lack of access to 3 weapon fighters.

"You're getting way ahead of development and looking at the big picture of what Vendetta will eventually be."

Am I? I'm just talking about rather small numbers here that are smaller than numbers we already have. I'm just talking about leveling the current playing field. I'm not talking about introducing 15 gun turret capital ships or anything like that. Remember, in 3.1 we had fighter/bombers with 3 small slots, 4 small slots and 1 large slot, and 4 small slots and 2 large slots respectively. No one complained about them being practically capital ships then.

"The point of the weapon customization and grouping is so that we CAN adjust the lethality of the ships in accordance with our spending budget."

If that was the entire story, then ships wouldn't have large or small slots to begin with. The purpose of weapon slots is to limit to some degree our ability to customize ships. I'm merely suggesting that there are other configurations that are possible besides the ones we have now which might not only prove fair, but might prove 'fairer' than the ones we have now. As it is, no one is using the Wraith. This tells me that the Wraith needs some help or you might as well not have it as an option. What would it take to make the Wraith a toss up with a Hornet or Ragnarok?

"If everyone had the option of customizing ports or buying all kinds of different port layouts, the ships would totally lose their uniqueness."

So you are telling me that the Warthog would be less unique if it had two heavy ports and no small ports?

"Their weapon capabilities match their size and agility. It wouldn't make sense, for example, to allow a small ship like the Warthog to fly around with 2 heavy ports while having the agility of a light fighter."

At this stage of the game, what makes sense is what we decide that makes sense. To me, it doesn't make sense that the Warthog loses two steps of manueverability on the centurian for only a slight increase in firepower. It doesn't make sense to me that the Wraith it no more agile than the much larger Ragnarok given that they use the same engines. It doesn't make sense to me that Valk still has more hull points than all but the largest bombers, still has more firepower than another fighter, still has more cargo space than any other fighter, and yet is more agile than all but the lightest fighter. Compare a Hornet and a Valk and tell me about how my suggestion don't make sense again. If you are willing to accept those existing fictions, why not some more that we invent - especially when the new fictions tend to make the ship designs more constitant?

"I have no idea how many of the current ship models are going to remain in the final game, if any of them. Even as things stand, ship ports are not perfectly consistent with the ship models themselves. Even with a 'modern' model like the Valkyrie, is it really 'consitant' to have rockets appearing from the same slender gun stalks that produce bolts of energy under a different configuration? Is it consistant with realism the way the Centaurs weapons appear from the 'rear' position, or is it merely good enough for a game? "

I realize that the models themselves don't update the ports dynamically (I'm sure that's coming later on). I was merely explaining that the number of weapons available should not exceed the number of visible ports. It just wouldn't look right. And yes, I realize a lot of the older models don't even have any visible ports. But again, this is more of an issue of actually updating the older models to reflect the current arsenal. Sorry if I didn't elaborate on that.

"If that was the entire story, then ships wouldn't have large or small slots to begin with. The purpose of weapon slots is to limit to some degree our ability to customize ships. I'm merely suggesting that there are other configurations that are possible besides the ones we have now which might not only prove fair, but might prove 'fairer' than the ones we have now. As it is, no one is using the Wraith. This tells me that the Wraith needs some help or you might as well not have it as an option. What would it take to make the Wraith a toss up with a Hornet or Ragnarok?"

The lesser used ships are meant for newbies. That's why they're cheap. It's the "you get what you pay for" kind of deal. That's the reason we don't see people choosing EC-88s over Vultures. You'll also notice that the very light fighters have a faster max boost speed than most other ships (at least it used to), when combined with a heavy engine. Even for experienced players, they still make great scout ships and can be lethal in high numbers.

"So you are telling me that the Warthog would be less unique if it had two heavy ports and no small ports?"

No, what I'm telling you is that if we had separate Warthog A and Warthog B to choose from, as you originally suggested as an alternative, it would make the Warthog lose its identity as a whole. How would one differentiate between the two in the game? Basically, I'd much rather have two separate ships (different models and specs) than a clone of a ship and switch a few specs around and label it "advanced."

"At this stage of the game, what makes sense is what we decide that makes sense. To me, it doesn't make sense that the Warthog loses two steps of manueverability on the centurian for only a slight increase in firepower. It doesn't make sense to me that the Wraith it no more agile than the much larger Ragnarok given that they use the same engines. It doesn't make sense to me that Valk still has more hull points than all but the largest bombers, still has more firepower than another fighter, still has more cargo space than any other fighter, and yet is more agile than all but the lightest fighter. Compare a Hornet and a Valk and tell me about how my suggestion don't make sense again. If you are willing to accept those existing fictions, why not some more that we invent - especially when the new fictions tend to make the ship designs more constitant?"

You simply can't compare each ship by their size or appearance. There can be thousands of internal factors that determine a ship's specs. Remember, this test game is meant to evolve into an MMORPG. One ship may have been manufactured at an earlier date than another. One ship may have been produced by a higher technology nation than another. One ship may have more efficient design, allowing it to do better maneuvers etc. That's what I'm trying to point out here. That's what makes each ship unique. You can't just look at a ship's appearance and read its specs and say something is wrong about it. You can't just assume every ship was built the same way, by the same people, and at the same time period. There may be hundreds of underlying factors that contribute to the ship's properties. We just don't know them yet. Maybe later on in development we'll see a small description of each ship's history, which will allow us to piece together why the ships behave the way they do.

Sorry for doing my job and offering suggestions as a tester.

=b

IMHO balance is much more important than realism, especially in a MMO game like this. There has to be balance for it to work.

Balance between pirating, trading, capping and botting (All should in the end be equally important for a player)
Balance between Fighters, Bombers and Traders (so there are no fighters that are better or equally good at trading as the traders, and vice versa)
Balance between Itani, Neutral and Serco (Equally good positions and trading routes)
Balance between the different ships in each category (The Centurion should be as good as the Valkyrie, just in a different way)
Balance between heavy and light weapons (Heavy weapons could deal more damage, but use more energy... or something...)
Balance between the different weapons in each category (no light weap should be better than another light. Choosing weapons should be just about personal taste, and not about having the best guns)
Balance between different trading routes (All routes should give equal amounts of profit in the long run)
Balance between the different engines (No über engine that everyone uses, it should all be about personal taste)
Balance between the different batteries (same as the engines)
Balance between the special ships and the normal ones (Special ships should be equal to normal ones in strength)
Balance between damage, velocity and range of weapons (High velocity should not be better than damage and vice versa)

... and even balance between Arcade and Physics modes...

Balance between basically everything is needed. Balance is everything. A multiplayer game without balance can not be good. If there is überships in a game, nobody will ever fly anything else, if there is überweapons, nobody will use the other guns...

You get my point, right?

euhm is it about balance :D

I'm confused "looks whizzically :D"

cheers

Even with Sam's "balanced" ideas, the Valk is still insane, though giving the Marauder more cargo would be helpful as it has only a small advantage over other vessels in how much it can carry.

Secondly, while costing 100 energy would be just fine for the Railgun, 200 makes it useless. I wish the devs hadn't beefed the energy consumption up so much. And the ability to hold more than 30 ammo would also be nice.