I don't think adding 100kg solves the real problem with the Valk, which is that nothing that can fight it can catch it. I also don't think it needs a complete overhaul to fix that problem.

I'd take the 100kg back off and crank up the turbo drain on everything but the Rune. As a starting point, let me suggest 58 for the X1 and 60 for the rest.

Interesting suggestions. I would also like to see a little more than the 100kg mass boost, but I think it's a step in the right direction at least.

I'm also a big supporter of: "4. Increase turbo drain of valk vengeance and X1, decrease armor of IDF valk" but a mass increase could help to fix the imbalance as well, although I don't think it's going to solve the issue by itself.

The main thing that worries me about a mass increase is taking the valk out of its role. What we really should focus on IMHO is defining the roles, establishing the difference between the valk variants that are interceptors and those that are superiority fighters while balancing them as a whole. I feel like suggestion #4 accomplishes this more than increasing the mass.

Regarding cutting reverse thrust by 25%, that has been discussed before with the conclusion that it would make rockets too difficult to dodge.

I'd take the 100kg back off and crank up the turbo drain on everything but the Rune. As a starting point, let me suggest 58 for the X1 and 60 for the rest.

This is not good for the IDF. The IDF is an interceptor primarily, and such a high turbo drain would greatly affect its abilities to fulfill its roll. Also, I do not believe the X-1 should perform better than the Vengeance in this respect due to balance. IMO, it needs some sort of drawback for being so much smaller (even with the mission and price, both of which are negatable with the current economy).

but a mass increase could help to fix the imbalance as well, although I don't think it's going to solve the issue by itself.

I would like to point out something: The more mass we add to Valkyries, the less effect heavier or lighter equipment has on the overall performance of the ship. With higher mass, configurations including flares and railguns will at least partially lose their disadvantage of worse maneuvering. Perhaps a small mass increase to help balance armor is due, but not more than a couple/few hundred kgs.

I don't think one of the best interceptors should also be one of the best fighters. If a Valkyrie variant is to be a good interceptor, it should lose some combat ability. Following the Greyhound's example, 60m/s top speed and an increase of 500kg+ offset by increased turbo thrust would do the trick.

The rest of the Valkyrie line should remain very strong in the fighter role, but lose the chase/run performance.

I still think there's an underlying problem in that it's it's too easy to run away from a fight in almost every ship that can fight. Even high-drain fighters can usually escape combat with little or no damage.

Let's try to define the roles?

Interceptors:
+ High turbo speed, normal speed, acceleration
- Low drain, spin torque, armour
* Objective: Intercept invaders, chase runners. Must be FAST!

Superiority fighters:
+ High drain, normal speed, spin torque and armour
- Low turbo speed, acceleration
* Objetive: Ensure Combat superiority. Must be AGILE and armoured

Zak's concept is crucial to what to do with Valks. For me, the X1 should be even faster, but "paper thin" armour. While the fighters should be slower, and interceptors should not be agile!

So, can you do better and classify the Valks (and remaining ships) by role?

"I would like to point out something: The more mass we add to Valkyries, the less effect heavier or lighter equipment has on the overall performance of the ship. With higher mass, configurations including flares and railguns will at least partially lose their disadvantage of worse maneuvering. Perhaps a small mass increase to help balance armor is due, but not more than a couple/few hundred kgs."

Adding mass doesn't get rid of disadvantages of heavier equipment, it makes the advantages of lighter equipment less apparent. We're not buffing the valk's ability to use flares by increasing its mass. A mass increase without a thrust increase nerfs the valks ability in general, but the effective use of lighter equipment suffers the most, which makes the disadvantages of heavier equipment less drastic in comparison. But you're still not gaining any maneuverability.

I think the point had to do with what's being incentivized/dis-incentivized, Ghost.

Given what Itani are, it seems odd to balance the valk in such a way as to lessen the advantage of being a light energy weapon pilot. I'd like to see them continue to be a ship that, at its pinnacle, embodies 'hit and move' -- rather than 'hit and run run run'.

Turbo drain and turbo thrust, rather than mass, would allow that. I submit that no top-line combat ship model, prom or valk, should ever be a top-line interceptor. Running things down is the province of non-combat-dedicated ships like the Greyhound, TD, and Hog Mk II. The reason pirates love valks is that they're too good at both chasing and fighting. As with the Hound, chasing ability and combat movement ability should be separated.

I think armor should go down instead of making any mass changes, i just made an exception in my changes for the vengence since its the armored variant.

Lecter your post is great. [Stamp of Approval]™

Oh and ghost I can't agree more with you about this: The main thing that worries me about a mass increase is taking the valk out of its role. What we really should focus on IMHO is defining the roles, establishing the difference between the valk variants that are interceptors and those that are superiority fighters while balancing them as a whole.

[Edit]Wow did someone edit my post or am i just still really really high. >.> I don't remember putting in IMHO. I even had to find out what IMHO meant. D:

"Turbo drain and turbo thrust, rather than mass, would allow that. I submit that no top-line combat ship model, prom or valk, should ever be a top-line interceptor."

I agree 100%. So let's consider this as an option, it's slightly different from the previous suggestion of:

4. Increase turbo drain of valk vengeance and X1, decrease armor of IDF valk

An adjusted idea could be:

-Take the 100kg back off of the valks, increase turbo drain and decrease turbo thrust, leave armor the same.

Potentially, if we wanted to get ambitious, the rune could be adjusted into the interceptor with low armor and maneuverability but high turbo thrust and low drain.

The rune should be in a different thread so we can de-nerft it properly.

I think i'm gonna tweak my initial suggestion because i think the X-1 should be a prototype supriority fighter and the Rune should be an armored variant, guys keep in mind that prototypes are still prototypes and usually have unworked kinks that need to be fixed and at the same type huge improvements in other areas that make it more ideal for its role since its a prototype for said role. TL:DR I over-nerfed it way too hard.

Oh yea and the thing is even if we did nerf the IDF valk hp down to <8000 its still an insane fighter that makes a just as deadly interceptor, I hate the idea of nerfing the 225 top speed or the drain greater than >57 since it strays away from the idea of itani having efficient fast drives. nerfing the boost thrust makes way more sense, in conclusion drain should stay the same and turbo thrust should be nerfed.

Good posts...

After reading all those, and reading Valk stats, I noticed that Valks are very similar. No specialization.

Let's remodel more openly the Valks, maybe something like:

Valk : Speeds ; Spin ; Drain ; Armour
mk1. : 60/210 ; 6.5 ; 50 ; 9500
Veng : 65/215 ; 7.0 ; 52 ; 11600
IDFv : 60/225 ; 7.0 ; 58 ; 12000
Rune : 65/225 ; 5.5 ; 50 ; 9500
X-1. : 70/225 ; 7.0 ; 60 ; 7500

-Mk.1 becomes a "lower" Valk, but infiniturbo
-Vengance and IDF become Superiority fighters
-Rune becomes an Interceptor
-X-1 is a light, agile and fast fighter, sacrificing armour.
(Just like I'd expect the 'top' itani ship to be.)

+Mass is not that critical, keep as is now.
+Remaing stats unchanged.

Valk stats @ VO-WIKI

OT> Give an interceptor to Serco... sort of grayhound! <OT

I am opposed to radical changes to the valks.

A major overhaul of the valks specs could take months of tweaking to get right.

In my suggested valk nerfs, I attempted to suggest what I thought would be the most minimal changes that would fix the problem. I tried to change just one thing at a time. Even targeting minimal change may require a period of feedback and correction. Altering many things at once could be a potential nightmare.

It appears to be next to imposable, or may even be completely imposable, to get a dev to implement even the simplest change.

Can we please just focus on the simplest fix that we think will actually fix the problem?

Remember, so far about all we have common consensus on is that the valk needs a fix. Even if we actually get that accomplished, we may still need to look at altering/adding ships or other options to round out a fix for the problems Ghost originally presented.

Fixing the valk will only fix the valk. It will be hard to see what else is really broke until we get the valk fixed.

I haven't actually tried the pvp yet, although it seems like most of the areas I've been to for the pve have been pretty wide open, are there lots of things to hide and cover behind and barriers on any of the maps to take advantage of the collisions, or are all the maps mostly open and most pvp/pve combat takes place with no relevant barriers? Like I've seen a few small asteroids that were fly-in able, are there any giant asteroids anywhere that are large with lots of tunnels / caverns / etc? Also it might be neat to be able to attach/land on a flat surface in space if you can't already do that, instead of just bouncing off it repeatedly? Also giant alien ruins with scattered barriers and clouds might make for good pvp.

I haven't actually tried the pvp yet...
Exactly.

The more I think about this, the more I believe that decreasing the turbo thrust and increasing the turbo drain of the valks is a great place to start. It may even resolve most of the problem.

It will: no more breaking off fast and running cleanly, and no more long term running, but no impact on the ability to dance around/in and out on a less manuverable target.

Which is sort of the whole damn point.

Woohoo people agree with me.

X-1's aren't interceptors. They're prototype fighters, Alloh.

I still believe more armor difference between the IDF and the X-1/Vengeance is in order... but the turbo nerfs are a good start. +1 there.

Have you considered lowering the spin torque and mass instead to favor lighter weapons?

You don't really need high turn rate for flares look at the prom/taur/hog that usually loadout flares despite low turnrate...

Turn rate is only really important in really close <30m light weapon combat.