week after week i have watched the serco team be completely raped by the itani team who fly valks almost exclusively and this is not to say that valks are unblanced. but the serco lack a ship that can close distance quickly and deliever a lot of firepower and then pull out after making a strike. while the prom is a great 1v1 ship it lacks the ability to decide when to engage or disengagne in an encounter which is a critical step in deciding who wins or loses a battle. while a prom must sit there and take the punishment from 2+ valks shooting it one valk and easily outrun a number of proms.

So i propose we give the serco some sort of quick strike ship. Fitting with the current way the serco are represented in game I think it should be along the lines of a dual large port ship something like a megaposi or plasma dev platform, or if we ever get it a meganeutron blaster. ideas? suggestions?

if someone who is a little better with coming up with "balanced" ship stats then me could suggest something that would be nice

Well... I guess you could either bring the SVG back to its original glory, design a new ship, or just give the Valkyrie an energy drain that actually makes sense (that of a corvult). (P.S. this has been suggested I-don't-know how many times before... seriously, it needs to get some official attention...)

Agreed. Both the Corvult and the Serco Vulture Guardian should go 225 m/s turbo, and the Valk should have 60 drain. The Corvult is an interceptor, for crying out loud, and between the high drain and mediocre top speed, it really can't intercept anything, Why is it that the valk has a) better acceleration b) better top speed c) better drain d) better weapons and e) better armor than the other two top-end dogfighters? That just seems a little unbalanced to me.

Ladron makes an interesting point regarding the valk. But aside from that, quit whining. The Itani are a light-fighter type. The Serco are a big-tank-fighter type. The serco ships aren't meant to do attack and run, that's what the Itani do. The Serco have a great ship, the scp, that's very hard to beat a good pilot at 1v1. The scp is incredibly good in group combat too, especially if there is good teamwork involved. RP wise and fighting wise, the serco have our ship... just no one these days knows how to use it.

I think I'm with ladron on this one, and I am not Serco. The Valkyrie should have about equal chase capacity of any of the top of the line vultures (maybe a little less). Give the Valk 57 energy/s drain and 200 N turbo thrust (this is much more reasonable than just nerfing the straight speed by a lot because it will simply make it much easier to shoot a Valk in the back if they decide to turn tail after already engaging you) and give the CV and SVG 225 m/s and an energy drain around 57 energy/s (the XT can get 55 energy/s) because let's face it, the drain on the CV and SVG should be given some improvement from their current mediocre (and annoying) state and even 60 m/s to 57 m/s will be sufficient (reasonable considering the CV's manufacturer/price and the balance required from the SVG as an intercepter for the Serco).

These are changes that would not affect the combat performance of vultures and valkyries and such, just their ability to run or intercept; valks will still be twice as light as vultures, have more than half the armor of a prom, have three weapon ports on them, and X-1s will still look like someone's been sitting on them.

I agree. But, of course, I am Serco.

To be clear: if the Valk is nerfed as suggested... there must be another ship introduced which can intercept like the Valk can (the Greyhound doesn't count, as it can't take out most non-transport ships in a fair fight). I would be fine if a vult or two-gun cent were to take it's place as intercepter -- and I seem to remember there were a few intercepter suggestions awhile back -- but you can't nerf one of two viable interceptor ships without bringing a new interceptor into the mix.

The Valk has long held the position of top interceptor (recently replaced by Greyhound) and top dogfighter. I agree that it could be considered insane that one ship holds (or nearly holds) both these titles. The fix isn't to just strip it's interceptor capability, as you need to replace what you take away with something else.

to make things clear this thread was not intended to get the valk nerfed in anyway it was to make suggestions to add something to the game rather then take away from something that already exists.

Then don't you need to give the Itani a prom-like ship?

peytros, I understand completely the point of this thread. I'm just saying there's no way that the valk could be nerfed as suggested in responses in this thread, not at least without a chase replacement.

I'd be all for upping the stats on the SVG a bit to make it more chase-worthy though. That in mind, I'd say that the prom is the best group combat ship in the game. The x1 isn't designed as a group combat ship. Group combat != hit and run. If you want a hit and run ship... join the smurfs.

I think the thing that's really annoying about fighting Valkyries is their ability to run like hell from a fight they've already started, not their ability to intercept. So I propose simply nerfing its turbo acceleration by a lot (<200 N). If they are already moving in one direction, then they should be able to intercept in that same direction just as easily; but if they are fighting, strafing, etc, then whoever they were fighting will easily be able to shoot them in the back much like you're able to do to running hog 2s.

And the SVG used to have 55 energy/s drain, I'm not saying bring CV and SVG all the way back to their original glory... but 57 energy/s would be fine for them. 60 energy/s is ridiculously annoying (especially considering the price). As I said in the previous post, the XT can go to 55 energy/s so it doesn't become too obsolete (although it somewhat is, already).

The real problem is that heavy energy weapons in VO.... er bite. Devastators have no where near the range and power they should have. The only heavy weapon worth using is the megaposi.

We need a better mega posi: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/20953

I think the thing that's really annoying about fighting Valkyries is their ability to run like hell from a fight they've already started, not their ability to intercept. So I propose simply nerfing its turbo acceleration by a lot (<200 N)

Those two capabilities -- to run from a fight and intercept another ship -- are one and the same. In order to run from a fight, you need to be faster (and be able to get to that speed faster) than other ships. In order to intercept a ship, you need that same acceleration and speed. Nerfing one element nerfs the other. Never forget that.

The Bio-Com XT is one of the most wortheless things the Devs ever thought up, and has long been universally mocked.

They're still not going to improve or shitcan it, but at least you know they should know well enough to do one or the other.

What Lecter said in his first comment: *if* such a disadvantage should be fixed, you need to balance the other end of the spectrum for Itani as well and give them a tank, too.

The way I see it this is only relevant in NW or furballs anyway (as you said, the prom is a great 1v1 ship). It might suck in NW, but I dunno if that one occasion deserves a fix affecting the entire current Serco/Itani ship balance.

Hello, I have been playing Vendetta for about 6 months and this is my first contribution to the suggestions board. I ran some quick numbers on popular set ups for the valk x-1 and its companion ship the IBG

The most popular set up I see on the x-1 now a days is a law blaster a xgx or sparrow and a raven blaster. Together these three items weigh 830kg plus adding a fast charge (for simplicities sake lets say that people do not always fly with the UC) you get a grand total of 940kg added to the hull weight of the x-1 making its total 3940kg with 225ns of thrust giving a thrust to weight ratio of 17.5

Now for arguements sake I looked at the IBG which is the x-1s counterpart if we load out our IBG with 2 laws and a FC it gets a total wieght of 3910 and a thrust of 218n giving us a thrust to weight ratio of 17.9. if we load it out with ravens, which put out less firepower then laws we get a weight of 3560kg and a thrust to mass of 16.3 granted most people will opt for n2s which gives us a mass of 4200kg and a thrust to weight of 19.2

oh and if we put a n2 on our valk in the first example we get a mass of 4140 and a thrust to mass of 18.4

Now I do not want to appear biased towards any nation, I have chars in all three of them. but I think the fact that a valk can put out much more firepower then a IBG and have a lower thrust to mass ratio means something needs to be slightly tweaked. so i propose instead of adding weight to the valk (which would skew all set ups across the board) make a minimum weight requirement for all ships. I think this would be the easiest way to correct what the problem is with out having to "nerf" anything.

You need to get out more, STR: at least one tube of sunflares are pretty standard on Valks. I personally prefer two suns with a hive posi in the nose, though I do love me some tri-flare where proms are involved.

It's only on those rare occasions where running in circles for ~20 minutes yeilds millions of credits in rewards (i.e., NW) that the Itani make their birds into featherweights.

Im glad that STR brought out the numbers, thank you. But I think the ratios are upside-down..no? A thrust to mass ratio is thrust/mass, but these are reported as mass over thrust?:
Im going to leave the IBG out of this for now.
Ill follow up with a table, if my numbers are off, please correct, I am grabbing them from the wiki: (note the VX1 has a higher turbo thrust-assuming normal thrust)

SVG: mass: 3800 kg thrust: 235N speed: 65/220
CV: mass: 3800 kg thrust: 230N speed: 75/220
VX1: mass: 3000 kg thrust: 225N speed: 65/225

Unarmed Thrust to Mass (acceleration) Ratios, ie a=F/m: (we cant assume weight because gravity effects are unknown, but relative none the less). Ill also assume thrust is actually in kilo Newtons to make the numbers readable, it seems more like the factor is 100 though...

SVG: 62 ms-2
CV: 61 ms-2
VX1: 75 ms-2

Accelerations for typical layouts (all using FC):
Fast Charge: 110 kg
n2 : 600 kg
n3 : 400 kg
ravens : 280 kg
xgx : 150 kg
aap : 500 kg
sunnie : 1200 kg?

SVG (dual n2): 46 ms-2
CV (dual n2): 45 ms-2
VX1 (dual n2): 52 ms-2
VX1 (dual n2 + sunnie): 41 ms-2

SVG (dual n3): 50 ms-2
CV (dual n3): 49 ms-2
CV (aap+xgx): 50 ms-2
VX1 (dual n3 + star): 46 ms-2
VX1 (dual rav+ star): 48 ms-2
VX1 (tri raven): 57 ms-2 (same energy drain as dual n3)

We see that if the pilot chooses to use ignore the 3rd port, the VX1 has a superior acceleration. But, if they throw in a sunny or star, the vult can out maneuver it, and has greater top speed. Maybe we all know this. The thing that is tough to put into pure numbers, is how do acceleration, an extra port and top speed trade off?

Being able to go 10m/s faster than your opponent is a big advantage to the CV, but that really only plays a factor (imo) in drawing out flares (which is not super fun, and the best pilots can draw them out in close anyway) and refilling the capacitor (which is probably significant if the CV is using n3s).

In a pure energy fight, VX1 versus CV, the acceleration difference is 57 ms-2 versus 49 ms-2. Is the difference compensated for in that increased top speed of the CV? Should it be? I don't know. IMO, the SVG doesn't compare to the VX1 in an all energy fight. Maybe the CV does when considering both the narrow front profile and higher top speed.

The X1 Valk is -- by design -- far and away one of the most powerful combat ships in the game. Are we seriously having a debate about minor balance issues with vultures and cents? What's next, a debate about whether the SCP needs to be more evenly matched against the maud and the hog?

This sort of stupid bullshit is why I hate balance nerds.