Forums » Suggestions
Indeed.
Itani lost.
Itani lost.
Honestly, I don't think the new SVG change will do anything to change one of the original main complaints (though it is certainly some well-needed love). There is no ship other than the Valkyrie that can engage quickly then turn tail and boost out with almost no fear of being hit. Its turbo acceleration outstrips everything else in use out there, and that has nothing to do with the turbo drain. As long as valk pilots and only valk pilots are able to disengage with near impunity, the fundamental problem will remain.
Also, slime, one of the big things with that screenie is that there are a lot of very good Serco pilots there, which I would say is far more important than the number of them in proms. All that's needed is to last long enough for the NAPs to break down into backstabbing chaos, and then things start to even out a little more. When there are only 4 Serco pilots, 2 of whom have never flown a NW before, I guess the drive to completely wipe them out overpowers the immediate drive to break up the NAP. :P
Also, slime, one of the big things with that screenie is that there are a lot of very good Serco pilots there, which I would say is far more important than the number of them in proms. All that's needed is to last long enough for the NAPs to break down into backstabbing chaos, and then things start to even out a little more. When there are only 4 Serco pilots, 2 of whom have never flown a NW before, I guess the drive to completely wipe them out overpowers the immediate drive to break up the NAP. :P
In that Nation War Itani and Serco duked it out while UIT watched, which is similar to what the grey team does these days.
My biggest problem with the Nation War (besides the lack of players) is the fact that the grey team doesn't have its own ingame color. I really don't think there should be any arbitrary new team added on to the War unless they have their own color, because they gain a large advantage just because it's a lot harder to identify who's on their team than any other team.
That's another discussion though... I'm getting off-topic <.< >.>
My biggest problem with the Nation War (besides the lack of players) is the fact that the grey team doesn't have its own ingame color. I really don't think there should be any arbitrary new team added on to the War unless they have their own color, because they gain a large advantage just because it's a lot harder to identify who's on their team than any other team.
That's another discussion though... I'm getting off-topic <.< >.>
Replying to Roda from the Votes thread:
Most of what you said I agree with. The ability to disengage is better for the IBG than the X-1, which I did not know until your comment prompted me to look it up. However, I don't think that option 4 (the one that just increases the valk's turbo drain) does anything to address that problem.
In my opinion, it's not such a bad idea for the IBG to have this ability. It is very small, has low armour, and fewer ports, and so being a quick little ship makes sense. The valk has lots more armour, more weapon ports, and is just beefier in general, so I think it should be changed such that it is not nearly as good at disengaging as the IBG. With one fewer port and just a bit over half the armour, being able to get away quickly isn't such a big deal with the IBG, whereas it makes the valk the perfect hit and run ship.
Just to be clear, I also support changing the valk first. There are certainly other problems with the current situation that need tweaking, but this is the most major one. As you say, the natural starting point.
Most of what you said I agree with. The ability to disengage is better for the IBG than the X-1, which I did not know until your comment prompted me to look it up. However, I don't think that option 4 (the one that just increases the valk's turbo drain) does anything to address that problem.
In my opinion, it's not such a bad idea for the IBG to have this ability. It is very small, has low armour, and fewer ports, and so being a quick little ship makes sense. The valk has lots more armour, more weapon ports, and is just beefier in general, so I think it should be changed such that it is not nearly as good at disengaging as the IBG. With one fewer port and just a bit over half the armour, being able to get away quickly isn't such a big deal with the IBG, whereas it makes the valk the perfect hit and run ship.
Just to be clear, I also support changing the valk first. There are certainly other problems with the current situation that need tweaking, but this is the most major one. As you say, the natural starting point.
Cheaper-design time wise-to inventing a new ship model is inventing a new weapon. Do Serco have a hard time chasing? Then a modified long distance weapon, idealized at shooting down fat, turboing potatoes. I used to pack an AGT + Double Rails on my Proms for this very reason.
Proms have tons of armor. I mean tons. You can land an entire fast charge cell worth of neuts on a sitting Prom, and run out of energy before it breaks. To that end, an energy efficient, low DPS, but *still competitively high velocity* blaster would help ease the pain of soloing Proms. Because that's the other reason Itani need hit and run tactics to bring down a Prom--there isn't enough energy to bring one down in a single run even if the Prom wasn't fighting back.
Proms have tons of armor. I mean tons. You can land an entire fast charge cell worth of neuts on a sitting Prom, and run out of energy before it breaks. To that end, an energy efficient, low DPS, but *still competitively high velocity* blaster would help ease the pain of soloing Proms. Because that's the other reason Itani need hit and run tactics to bring down a Prom--there isn't enough energy to bring one down in a single run even if the Prom wasn't fighting back.
A CorVult with two neut2s and a heavy cell has enough firepower and energy to kill two SCPs while turboing, so you're exaggerating a bit (I just needed to point that out), but I agree a new weapon might be useful. Perhaps something like this?(rough stats):
202m/s velocity (195 for Neut2, 205 for Neut3)
700 damage
520kgs
13 energy
.17 delay
4 grid
Good-Very Good autoaim?
4118 DPS (4286 for Neut2, 4286 for Neut3)
76 EPS (79 for Neut2, 100 for Neut3)
54 DPE (55 for Neut2, 43 for Neut3)
202m/s velocity (195 for Neut2, 205 for Neut3)
700 damage
520kgs
13 energy
.17 delay
4 grid
Good-Very Good autoaim?
4118 DPS (4286 for Neut2, 4286 for Neut3)
76 EPS (79 for Neut2, 100 for Neut3)
54 DPE (55 for Neut2, 43 for Neut3)
It will just never be the same as before.
Something shifted in the community a while back, everything became really superficial and tame (in pvp that is). Probably due to the fact that everyone became incredibly rich so dying lost it's effect and pilots gave up on pride and self respect in terms of "how good they are". Back in the day, dying sucked and being beaten sucked and it was unacceptable. Now everyone goes off to get a valk and runs off only to station camp some poor newb or something later. In short, everyone became an estrian prosis (only name that probably sounds familiar anymore in that regard.)
So with the economy spiraling out of control in a weird way and leaving no *need* to fight for...anything and even when dying to pirates or something it doesn't even matter. So basically all the vets who loved to fight become disenchanted and slowly fade away and so traders begin fighting "sophisticatedly" and now fighting is merely a toy and social event with all these ridiculous unwritten rules and rules of engagement. Thus the carebear age that came. And someone who can fight well is simply an object now by the community, one who is not feared and one who is not seen as of any use. It is like a sport, that actually doesn't serve anything or anyone anymore.
We were essentially starved to death.
Something shifted in the community a while back, everything became really superficial and tame (in pvp that is). Probably due to the fact that everyone became incredibly rich so dying lost it's effect and pilots gave up on pride and self respect in terms of "how good they are". Back in the day, dying sucked and being beaten sucked and it was unacceptable. Now everyone goes off to get a valk and runs off only to station camp some poor newb or something later. In short, everyone became an estrian prosis (only name that probably sounds familiar anymore in that regard.)
So with the economy spiraling out of control in a weird way and leaving no *need* to fight for...anything and even when dying to pirates or something it doesn't even matter. So basically all the vets who loved to fight become disenchanted and slowly fade away and so traders begin fighting "sophisticatedly" and now fighting is merely a toy and social event with all these ridiculous unwritten rules and rules of engagement. Thus the carebear age that came. And someone who can fight well is simply an object now by the community, one who is not feared and one who is not seen as of any use. It is like a sport, that actually doesn't serve anything or anyone anymore.
We were essentially starved to death.
Perhaps true Mecha, but off topic.
This thread is about Serco/Itani Balance.
I have attempted to expand it to galactic ship balance, by citing the valk as the biggest problem to balancing any other ship.
You are addressing something on an even grander scale than that. Surely deserving of it's own thread.
Unless you where just venting, and are now done.
This thread is about Serco/Itani Balance.
I have attempted to expand it to galactic ship balance, by citing the valk as the biggest problem to balancing any other ship.
You are addressing something on an even grander scale than that. Surely deserving of it's own thread.
Unless you where just venting, and are now done.
A CorVult with two neut2s and a heavy cell has enough firepower and energy to kill two SCPs while turboing
Ya got your stats wrong, it only kills one SCP.
And Mynt, I do believe that that's contrary to the entire motive of all this talk and I've said over and over that making new ships doesn't mean making new models if you just make variants... see the previous page.
Ya got your stats wrong, it only kills one SCP.
And Mynt, I do believe that that's contrary to the entire motive of all this talk and I've said over and over that making new ships doesn't mean making new models if you just make variants... see the previous page.
What denji said makes me more inclined to reconsider an armor nerf for all valks in addition to turbo drain nerfs for the assault variants.
Itani ship's combat agility doesn't have to be sacrificed. Though, we haven't specified what sort mass increase we'd give valks, which makes talking about this hard either way.
Itani ship's combat agility doesn't have to be sacrificed. Though, we haven't specified what sort mass increase we'd give valks, which makes talking about this hard either way.
It should be a thrust decrease, not a mass increase.
11,600 armor, three ports, and 3000kgs? I don't think so.
X-1/Vengeance mass should be at least 3600kgs, preferably something like 3800kgs to 4000kgs.
Oops. It seems I did my math wrong, thanks for pointing that out.
X-1/Vengeance mass should be at least 3600kgs, preferably something like 3800kgs to 4000kgs.
Oops. It seems I did my math wrong, thanks for pointing that out.
Not venting, just I don't think ship balancing will help at this point.
Ports are empty space until they're filled and guns provide sufficient weight. The low weight and thrust is there to keep the Valkyrie a light weapons ship. While increasing the weight, alone, will not make heavier weapons more effective, it would make the margin between the effectiveness of lighter and heavier weapons smaller. If you want less collateral effect on the other roles of the Valkyrie, you would lower the thrust (and the spin torque, if you so wish) and not simply increase the weight.
As for the armor, I'm not defending it, but in the case that it is not decreased, the in-game description clearly states the use of Itani light armor technology in the design of the Valkyrie.
As for the armor, I'm not defending it, but in the case that it is not decreased, the in-game description clearly states the use of Itani light armor technology in the design of the Valkyrie.
I have never played this game ( im downloading the game for the trial atm ) but in JGC the same discussion emerged between the tensity and the phoenix.
I think when 2 ships shoot at eachother at point blank range and are both stationary and the relative dmg done is almost equal, i think the balance is good and the only diffrence between both is they are better suited for diffrent roles.
The best sollution imho is to add diffrent ship types to compensate for group fights although in my experience (group)tactics and communications usually prevail over any disadvantage.
Well, the download is ready. I think im gonna start my trail now ;)
I think when 2 ships shoot at eachother at point blank range and are both stationary and the relative dmg done is almost equal, i think the balance is good and the only diffrence between both is they are better suited for diffrent roles.
The best sollution imho is to add diffrent ship types to compensate for group fights although in my experience (group)tactics and communications usually prevail over any disadvantage.
Well, the download is ready. I think im gonna start my trail now ;)
Hi noob here, only played for a few hours.
Have read much of the thread and noticed that most, if not all, of the solutions to the Itani v Serco problem revolve around adding new ships or modifying existing ships.
There is another solution. Introduce weapons that counter the ability that is causing the problem. Examples:
The Itani have a very fast ship - the Valk. So it would make sense if the Serco were to invent an even faster missile, available only to them, to compensate. Maybe an emp missile which knocks out engines for a couple of seconds and only works on Valks (due to the Valks having a unique engine design or whatever.)
Similarly, if the Serco had a very tough ship the Itani - instead of desiging their own very tough ship - might respond by developing a very powerful missile. Specially designed to do optimum damage to that specific Serco ship and lesser damage to others.
Just food for thought.
Have read much of the thread and noticed that most, if not all, of the solutions to the Itani v Serco problem revolve around adding new ships or modifying existing ships.
There is another solution. Introduce weapons that counter the ability that is causing the problem. Examples:
The Itani have a very fast ship - the Valk. So it would make sense if the Serco were to invent an even faster missile, available only to them, to compensate. Maybe an emp missile which knocks out engines for a couple of seconds and only works on Valks (due to the Valks having a unique engine design or whatever.)
Similarly, if the Serco had a very tough ship the Itani - instead of desiging their own very tough ship - might respond by developing a very powerful missile. Specially designed to do optimum damage to that specific Serco ship and lesser damage to others.
Just food for thought.
Thats actually quite a good idea fraxinus, welcome to the VO forums :)
I'm still for the weight increase. When I fight a valk in my corvult (best pvp ship for non itani lubbers), it's very annoying to have a ship with more armour, dual neut + raven/something light to be *lighter* then my corvult, have more armour then my corvult, and approximately the same cross-sectional front area. Do you have any idea how much more difficult it is for a fighter in the heavier ship of the two? It becomes exponentially more difficult, given the same speed of weapons.
That missle idea is interesting, could be very useful during NWs to have a few anti special ships.
That missle idea is interesting, could be very useful during NWs to have a few anti special ships.
Missiles are antithetical to our pilot-skill intensive PvP system and UIT and Grey folks have equal need to contend with the currently overpowered Valkyrie. Ghost was mistaken to frame this thread in terms of Itani vs Serco. The sensible thing is simply to nerf the offending ship.
Valkyries take damage when they engage and that their turbo acceleration is not unique but similar to Rev Cs/IBGs/SVGs, ships which are not seen as problematic. The two principle difference between Valkyries and these other ships (at least until recently) is that Valkyries have more armor and lower turbo drain. Since high (60/s) drain is still sufficient to disengage successfully, I believe that the armor is the first thing that we should change.
If we increase the mass we can't do it by much or we risk ruining the ship altogether. The fattiness of its frame already negates, in my experience, much of its other combat advantages and medium fighters have a terrible time evading AGT/flare which is a trouble I do not wish to see bequeathed to Valkyries.
So. I suggest changing the Vengeance/X-1's armor from 11600 to 10000 and the IDF Vigilant from 11000 to 9500. I'm open to a minor mass increase also but I don't have any numbers to propose.
Valkyries take damage when they engage and that their turbo acceleration is not unique but similar to Rev Cs/IBGs/SVGs, ships which are not seen as problematic. The two principle difference between Valkyries and these other ships (at least until recently) is that Valkyries have more armor and lower turbo drain. Since high (60/s) drain is still sufficient to disengage successfully, I believe that the armor is the first thing that we should change.
If we increase the mass we can't do it by much or we risk ruining the ship altogether. The fattiness of its frame already negates, in my experience, much of its other combat advantages and medium fighters have a terrible time evading AGT/flare which is a trouble I do not wish to see bequeathed to Valkyries.
So. I suggest changing the Vengeance/X-1's armor from 11600 to 10000 and the IDF Vigilant from 11000 to 9500. I'm open to a minor mass increase also but I don't have any numbers to propose.
Crusader, are you nuts? The Valk's forward profile is enormous compared to a vulture, perhaps 3x as tall, a little less for the X-1.
+1 to Maalik's idea above, which is similar to #4 here:
http://vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/23651
+1 to Maalik's idea above, which is similar to #4 here:
http://vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/23651