Recorded drazed's votes.

3) Add Group/Formation Indicator to HUD.

I'm in support of any idea that provides additional tools for coordination within groups.

We've had a lot of support for idea 1 as well as some good points against. I'm not entirely opposed to adding new ships even though it's undoubtedly the most difficult and time consuming option we have. But I would like to start seeing some more specific suggestions if we're going to look at this seriously. "Add some new ships" doesn't help us much. Let's start thinking about stats of ships we would add. Do we use new models? New variants of old models? The more specific we can get with these suggestions the better. Let's give Inc & co. some real concrete ideas.

I agree with both roda and drazed.

Give itani the option of several valks nerfed in different ways.

Then give serco a good fighter/chaser such as an extremely nerfed valk, and give the itani a good bomber/platform like the "pocket capship" prom, but give it reduced stats

New models. We have far to many variants already. New models would give vets something new and newbs something to aspire to.

Did you ever flown a ship with another gunner shooting in (almost) same direction as you?

Considered how more effective it can become while increasing coop play? I imagine it can turn the balance towards Serco, what will bring in an itani counter-measure...

Indeed, we should consider that innovation in battlefield should be constant, appealing to Vets also. Slowly raise the bar...

Alloh... your english actually got worse? How?

At any rate, I agree with this. "innovation in battlefield should be constant"

I've dropped turbo drain on the SVG from 60 to 56. That's still slightly worse then the Valks, but should still make it drastically more useful.

I support the notion of adding a special Itani bomber, at some point, although like others I think the "global" ship selection has enough options that this isn't really a screaming necessity. But I think it would be good.

The SVG as the Serco's general light fighter is probably reasonable. Although we can always add other variants and things down the road (more end-products for Manufacturing).

I'm not against giving the SkyCommand Prom a turret, although doing anything involving an "automated turret" is somewhat involved and can't happen immediately.

I totally support continued feedback on these issues, and suggestions on what we should do, and the respective priorities of such things (ie, the Itani could use a heavy ship that's not as cool as the Prom, but probably not right away).

It does also help us, from an implementation standpoint, to have ships on both sides that play similar respective roles. Maybe they don't play those roles as well (Serco: better heavies, Itani: better light fighters), but nonetheless with similar roles. That way, when we roll out AI and NPC organizations relating to dynamic warfare, we can equip both sides similarly with whatever their respective nation uses in that particular role (fighter/bomber/whatever). Otherwise we get into kind of a Zerg/Protoss/Human game-balance conundrum of the relative merits and difficulty of totally different tactics. This is of course really cool on the play side, but sucks on the development side, and I'd prefer to keep things simple for now.

Give the Serco a Hornet variant for their Valk knockoff (The black cockpit design'll match the Prom). Give the Itani a 14-16k armor, 2L 0S Wraith with 210 m/s turbo top speed and 57/s energy drain for their Prom knockoff (Itani design).

Good work inc. You superseded player input by implementing your own solution without concern to player feedback.

Ghost was running an effective campaign to solicit, sort, and deliberate player opinion on the matter, and as far as I can tell, while Ghost was making great progress, he was not at all finished.

If you will not even let us finish the debate before you veto the results, I do not know why anyone would even bother.

Roda get off your pedestal and calm your estrogen. Inc created a temporary solution and he was pretty clear about it... (to anyone with an IQ over double digits.).

At any rate, ShankTanks idea seems reasonable, though I would rather see entirely new ships. However as new ships getting in game is time consuming, variants are a decent temporary solution.

Roda, it was clear that everyone agreed on an SVG energy efficiency buff... that is really the only thing everyone's agreed on thus far, and that's what got implemented thus far. It's clear that Incarnate is paying far more attention to this thread than you are, and you aren't making a game at the same time.

I would like to see brand new ships, too, RR, but we're pretty low on qualified 3d designers, right now. Besides, the Wraith matches the Itani ship theme and the Hornet matches the Serco ship theme pretty well. It also helps that the Hornet is already an interceptor and the Wraith is already a prom knockoff :P they seem like the most logical variant choices, to me.

Thats why I agree...(until we can get actual new ships anyway.).

Ghost was ever so kind as to tally votes against in his OP. While he hasn't yet begun to tally votes for, I hope he will in the near future.

By the tallies listed in the OP, any vult modification is a clear loser.

Although I am biased, my own tallies indicate a growing support for minor and varied valk nerfs (#13).

so who is not paying attention here?

edit: and new ships will only address a regional issue. the valk is a galaxy wide problem.

Roda: Dude, stick it in your ear. Yes, I read the vote tally. I also read the entire bloody thread (tonight), and picked something that I thought would be helpful and doable on short notice, that was not a really drastic change, and only impacted one parameter. A selection of valk nerfs would have been more involved. I'm not against doing those too, but I thought this would be a reasonable show of faith that I was listening.

It is my (extensive) experience that threads like this tend to lose steam and die out about.. now. I was trying to inject some reality that I was listening and would be willing change things. I still am. And if it's desired that I change the ****ing SVG from 56 back to 60, then I can do that too.

Ty for listening inc!!! :)
We all not all grumpy like roda, lol.

Ghost: remove 2., this is already implemented

Thank you for taking the time to look over the thread inc, I think there's a lot of good feedback from all sides here. We'll do our best to keep the discussion going and narrow down some options. And thank you for the SVG buff! IMHO, the SVG needed some love anyways, regardless of the current topic. This will give the Serco a decent long range ship, which they have not had until now. Like Inc mentioned, if it becomes apparent that a different idea is a better fix, the SVG can always be adjusted back.

I still want to rule out some more ideas before we start tallying +1's. That way we can focus everyone's +1's on a fewer variety of ideas.

Removed idea 2.

I'm also casting a vote against idea 4. Maal mentioned that the idea of making the prom a better chaser was misguided. I tend to agree with this.

I oppose the removal of #2. I like tracking votes against it.

Just made a note to make sure people know they can still vote against it.

I think the idea of making the SCP a better chaser is bad in the same way that the valk being a great fighter and a great chaser is bad.

I still think the prom3 is under utilized and should be morfed into a chaser.

Flew the SVG all over the place tonight, vast improvement with the lower drain. Definitely a good start.