Forums » Suggestions
Bring back proper ship roles
For example, this idea of capping the top speed at 225m/s (230m/s by mechanics) is silly.
Proper interceptors should have a large top speed (230-245m/s) and turbo thrust, and a large turbo drain to balance.
Infiniturbo should either not exist, or it should be capped at a low speed (190-210m/s). RegenTurbo should definitely not exist on small ships.
Trade ships should be armored more, and have a slightly lower top speed, but more thrust.
This is what the ships used to be like, and they were much more fun to play with. Nowadays everyone just uses a greyhound to run away consistently at the highest speed with no, or negative drain (regen-turbo).
Use this as a guide.
-- Head on combat ships -- (CV, BioCom Vult, RevC)
High cruise speeds, moderate armor, low mass, high spin torque, low profile.
-- Interceptors -- (SVG, IBG, X-1)
Higher top speed means more turbo drain.
Higher top speed should be coupled with more turbo thrust on interceptor class ships. (like about 65/s for 240-245m/s)
Infiniturbo should have a low top speed (210m/s MAX), and low turbo thrust. Turboing forever is not cool (see greyhound, although the greyhound can retain the thrust due to it being a special ship).
-- Trade Ships --
Low top speed, high thrust, high armor, defensively positioned weapons (stretch).
-- Bombers --
Moderate top speed (170-190m/s), high armor, offensively positioned weapons (as exists), high (turbo) thrust (more than right now).
-- Heavy Combat Ships -- (Prometheus, Centaur, Axia Wraith, Rag MkIII)
High Armor, High Thrust, Medium Top Speed (200-220m/s), High Drain (57-61/s).
-------------------------------------
As it stands now, the X-1 is good for all roles, the greyhound is amazing for totally avoiding combat, the prom is a ganking powerhouse, and the CV just isn't an interceptor (as labelled). There's just no easy distinction in roles for ships.
Proper interceptors should have a large top speed (230-245m/s) and turbo thrust, and a large turbo drain to balance.
Infiniturbo should either not exist, or it should be capped at a low speed (190-210m/s). RegenTurbo should definitely not exist on small ships.
Trade ships should be armored more, and have a slightly lower top speed, but more thrust.
This is what the ships used to be like, and they were much more fun to play with. Nowadays everyone just uses a greyhound to run away consistently at the highest speed with no, or negative drain (regen-turbo).
Use this as a guide.
-- Head on combat ships -- (CV, BioCom Vult, RevC)
High cruise speeds, moderate armor, low mass, high spin torque, low profile.
-- Interceptors -- (SVG, IBG, X-1)
Higher top speed means more turbo drain.
Higher top speed should be coupled with more turbo thrust on interceptor class ships. (like about 65/s for 240-245m/s)
Infiniturbo should have a low top speed (210m/s MAX), and low turbo thrust. Turboing forever is not cool (see greyhound, although the greyhound can retain the thrust due to it being a special ship).
-- Trade Ships --
Low top speed, high thrust, high armor, defensively positioned weapons (stretch).
-- Bombers --
Moderate top speed (170-190m/s), high armor, offensively positioned weapons (as exists), high (turbo) thrust (more than right now).
-- Heavy Combat Ships -- (Prometheus, Centaur, Axia Wraith, Rag MkIII)
High Armor, High Thrust, Medium Top Speed (200-220m/s), High Drain (57-61/s).
-------------------------------------
As it stands now, the X-1 is good for all roles, the greyhound is amazing for totally avoiding combat, the prom is a ganking powerhouse, and the CV just isn't an interceptor (as labelled). There's just no easy distinction in roles for ships.
There doesn't need to be clear cut distinctions for every single ship class. Uses of ships is much more varied than you are implying. People have all kinds of reasons for choosing ships in this game, and the choices that we currently have are quite acceptable. Re-vamping all the ships in a quest to purely define each ship class more distinctly from a combat-only perspective is heading down the wrong path.
-1
-1
The appropriate fix is making the Hound a choice, like Valks and Proms are choices.
And the speed cap is over, we all lost to make the game playable for the great unwashed. Sucks, but Inc. has been extremely clear we're never seeing it change back.
-1
And the speed cap is over, we all lost to make the game playable for the great unwashed. Sucks, but Inc. has been extremely clear we're never seeing it change back.
-1
-1
The problem with the ships speed cap (no ships over 225 m/s) that was introduced long time ago is that the speed cap was applied only to interceptors (SVG, IBG, Rev C, Valkyrie, vulturis), all other ships were unaffected by this top speed cap, think they only downgraded top speed of mineral extractor and tunguska marauder at some point.
If you want the old top speed balance to return, all other non-interceptor ships need a top speed reduction by 10%.
For instance, IDF valkyrie had a top speed of 250 and SCP had 220.
Now IDF has 225 and SCP is still at 220.
If you want the old top speed balance to return, all other non-interceptor ships need a top speed reduction by 10%.
For instance, IDF valkyrie had a top speed of 250 and SCP had 220.
Now IDF has 225 and SCP is still at 220.
And the speed cap is over, we all lost to make the game playable for the great unwashed. Sucks, but Inc. has been extremely clear we're never seeing it change back.
Yes, the speed cap is a necessity, and now more than ever (mobile cellular modems further increase network latency, which is like 70% of our userbase now?).
But the real issue was that the ships were all buffed in capabilities until I realized we had exceeded playability over trans-atlantic latency, and then I just capped things off. As Lecter has noted a few times before, it would have been far better to roll the game back to what it had been, prior to things being buffed. Unfortunately, our game-properties stuff was not revision controlled.. there was no way for me to know what all the ship properties had been beforehand.
So, we could theoretically just take the 225m/s thing, and re-structure relative capabilities around that ceiling. We've talked about that in threads before, and I've said it could be ok. It's obviously a major undertaking from a controversy standpoint, as you're.. re-mapping the specs of every single ship (practically), which is guaranteed to piss a lot of people off.
But, if we're sure it makes for a better game, I'm willing to at least consider it.
Yes, the speed cap is a necessity, and now more than ever (mobile cellular modems further increase network latency, which is like 70% of our userbase now?).
But the real issue was that the ships were all buffed in capabilities until I realized we had exceeded playability over trans-atlantic latency, and then I just capped things off. As Lecter has noted a few times before, it would have been far better to roll the game back to what it had been, prior to things being buffed. Unfortunately, our game-properties stuff was not revision controlled.. there was no way for me to know what all the ship properties had been beforehand.
So, we could theoretically just take the 225m/s thing, and re-structure relative capabilities around that ceiling. We've talked about that in threads before, and I've said it could be ok. It's obviously a major undertaking from a controversy standpoint, as you're.. re-mapping the specs of every single ship (practically), which is guaranteed to piss a lot of people off.
But, if we're sure it makes for a better game, I'm willing to at least consider it.
Other than the 225m/s issue, which has been addressed, +1 to this.
In fact, it's similar to a suggestion made last summer.
In fact, it's similar to a suggestion made last summer.
Bojan raises a correct point re: speed cap being implemented in an extremely thoughtless manner, but we've had that discussion before too. Apparently they literally don't know what all the speeds were before vs. after the cap, so scaling would be harder. Plus some things have been seriously speed-tweaked in the intervening years (e.g.,moth) so there'd be that to consider.
[edit]lol I should have read the red-text first, and saved myself the post[/edit]
[edit]lol I should have read the red-text first, and saved myself the post[/edit]
I would much rather have more customization options when purchasing ships than rebalancing. Offer roughly the current settings as default and allow players to tweak them to enhance in one aspect of performance to the detriment of another such that the overall balance remains intact, but the ships versatility better suits the players preferences. And since this will never happen...
+1 to some degree of rebalancing. I'd start light and tweak over time as has been done in other instances.
+1 to some degree of rebalancing. I'd start light and tweak over time as has been done in other instances.
+1 to it all.
Except Duck Dynasty Edition Greyhounds. Don't nerf them!
Except Duck Dynasty Edition Greyhounds. Don't nerf them!
".. re-mapping the specs of every single ship (practically), which is guaranteed to piss a lot of people off."
Maybe it's just me, but if you buff all the ship speeds, the weapon velocity should be looked at as well.
Maybe it's just me, but if you buff all the ship speeds, the weapon velocity should be looked at as well.
If all the specs of every ship will be re-mapped, there probably won't be any buffing of ship speeds Ore. But I agree that weapon speeds should still be looked at as well. IIRC sunflare velocity was 65m/s back in alpha with the heavy engine for ships also being 65m/s.