Forums » Suggestions
Phaser, why would you further nerf the moth's speed given the nerfs it has already received since the speed cap?
Ratio of old moth speed to old top speed is 180:250 (0.72), while ratio of new moth speed to new top speed is already worse at 160:225 (0.71) and your change would take it all the way to 153:225 (0.68).
The XC and Heavy Miner moths didn't exist at the time of the speed cap, so I'm not sure why you're suggesting a change to their speeds, much less ones that are different than the change to the base-model moth. In any event, I don't see a problem with them being at least as fast as the base-model moth: the XC has no weapons or turrets, so running is its sole defense; the Heavy Miner requires a substantial amount of work to acquire.
I notice a number of other ships with the same current top speed having different suggested amounts of change (e.g., Hornet Mk II vs Orion Convoy Guardian)...while I'm agnostic about whether additional differentiation would be bad, can you elaborate about how you've arrived at the differing amounts of adjustment?
Ratio of old moth speed to old top speed is 180:250 (0.72), while ratio of new moth speed to new top speed is already worse at 160:225 (0.71) and your change would take it all the way to 153:225 (0.68).
The XC and Heavy Miner moths didn't exist at the time of the speed cap, so I'm not sure why you're suggesting a change to their speeds, much less ones that are different than the change to the base-model moth. In any event, I don't see a problem with them being at least as fast as the base-model moth: the XC has no weapons or turrets, so running is its sole defense; the Heavy Miner requires a substantial amount of work to acquire.
I notice a number of other ships with the same current top speed having different suggested amounts of change (e.g., Hornet Mk II vs Orion Convoy Guardian)...while I'm agnostic about whether additional differentiation would be bad, can you elaborate about how you've arrived at the differing amounts of adjustment?
I'm not trying to defend either position, really. But "nerfing" trading ships isn't what's happening here in my opinion.
Rebalancing ships' top speeds would absolutely be an improvement to the role playing aspect of the game. It would highlight the most important differences between the ships.
And people won't stop playing the game if the top speeds of ships were changed. It would encourage the players that want to pilot trade ships to hire escorts or ACTUALLY have to be sneaky. Nowadays, escort is VERY rarely used and most the interceptors can really only effectively catch ships under 180 m/s. The only ships that have a top speed at or below 180 are newb ships. Encouraging interceptor style ships to chase newb ships isn't good for player retention.
On the flip side to all this, keeping the ships as they are now, allows the hauler type of players to effectively work on their own. This is definitely a really important thing for those people that haul primarily solo. And helpful to those that have inherent limited means of communication, i.e. mobile players.
I REALLY like Phaser's numbers actually.
Currently, the differences between the mid-ranged ships aren't big enough. These new numbers individualize each of the ships and I think that is really what I'm looking for. I don't want a "nerf". But I do want some more distinctness in ship roles.
Rebalancing ships' top speeds would absolutely be an improvement to the role playing aspect of the game. It would highlight the most important differences between the ships.
And people won't stop playing the game if the top speeds of ships were changed. It would encourage the players that want to pilot trade ships to hire escorts or ACTUALLY have to be sneaky. Nowadays, escort is VERY rarely used and most the interceptors can really only effectively catch ships under 180 m/s. The only ships that have a top speed at or below 180 are newb ships. Encouraging interceptor style ships to chase newb ships isn't good for player retention.
On the flip side to all this, keeping the ships as they are now, allows the hauler type of players to effectively work on their own. This is definitely a really important thing for those people that haul primarily solo. And helpful to those that have inherent limited means of communication, i.e. mobile players.
I REALLY like Phaser's numbers actually.
Currently, the differences between the mid-ranged ships aren't big enough. These new numbers individualize each of the ships and I think that is really what I'm looking for. I don't want a "nerf". But I do want some more distinctness in ship roles.
In my suggestion the moth further has its top speed nerfed partly to increase the difference between the Aeolus Light Moth, which has its speed the same, and the other variants. The 40 (or 120) cu cargo difference isn't quite enough to justify the current top speed differential.
can you elaborate about how you've arrived at the differing amounts of adjustment?
I started with a 15% top speed decrease across the board for ships that drain at least 50/s under turbo. For the sum of every minimum license level requirement above license 1, I reduced the nerf by 1 point (1%). For Combat/Light/Heavy, I counted only the greatest of the three. For faction special ships, I further reduced the nerf by 5 points. For every turbo energy drain point above 50/s up to 55/s I reduced the nerf by 1 point.
Ships above 55/s turbo energy drain I left alone (no adjustment from present stats). There isn't a good reason for this other than the differences get smaller the further above 50/s you go, it was late, and I was tired.
Certain other ships I also excepted, such as the EC series, the Aeolus Light Moth, and the TPG Raptor. The EC-104 I reduced to 180 m/s because a 200 m/s infiniturbo ship after the first trader badge seemed like a little much right out of the gate in light of the other nerfs.
can you elaborate about how you've arrived at the differing amounts of adjustment?
I started with a 15% top speed decrease across the board for ships that drain at least 50/s under turbo. For the sum of every minimum license level requirement above license 1, I reduced the nerf by 1 point (1%). For Combat/Light/Heavy, I counted only the greatest of the three. For faction special ships, I further reduced the nerf by 5 points. For every turbo energy drain point above 50/s up to 55/s I reduced the nerf by 1 point.
Ships above 55/s turbo energy drain I left alone (no adjustment from present stats). There isn't a good reason for this other than the differences get smaller the further above 50/s you go, it was late, and I was tired.
Certain other ships I also excepted, such as the EC series, the Aeolus Light Moth, and the TPG Raptor. The EC-104 I reduced to 180 m/s because a 200 m/s infiniturbo ship after the first trader badge seemed like a little much right out of the gate in light of the other nerfs.
Why is the hog2 being proposed for a nerf? It's the poor man's hound and is what anyone without access to the hound would use as an interceptor.
The hog2 is essential to my playstyle of performing combat repairs (namely needing a fast ship with an L & S port and infiniturbo). With the current stats it is already impossible to keep up with the hound and other hog2's (due to the mass of the repair guns slowing it down).
With the proposed drop in the hog2's turbo speed, the only ships it would be able to keep up with for combat repairs are trade ships, which are useless for providing combat repairs to because they will take damage faster than they can be repaired.
Using the hound would be suitable for offering combat repairs, but I am assuming that is going to become pirate exclusive. There is also the matter that I cannot afford the hound's repair bill. Imagine the irony of a repair man who cannot afford to repair himself.
The hog2 is essential to my playstyle of performing combat repairs (namely needing a fast ship with an L & S port and infiniturbo). With the current stats it is already impossible to keep up with the hound and other hog2's (due to the mass of the repair guns slowing it down).
With the proposed drop in the hog2's turbo speed, the only ships it would be able to keep up with for combat repairs are trade ships, which are useless for providing combat repairs to because they will take damage faster than they can be repaired.
Using the hound would be suitable for offering combat repairs, but I am assuming that is going to become pirate exclusive. There is also the matter that I cannot afford the hound's repair bill. Imagine the irony of a repair man who cannot afford to repair himself.
Would the Raptor UDV serve as a suitable Hog 2 replacement in a repair role, although it is non-infiniturbo? What about the TPG Atlas X?
One of the things I don't like about the Hog 2 is the very reason you state: it is a poor man's hound, widely available. The large speed advantage it holds over the Hog 1 seems incongruous in design to begin with. Not nerfing it would make this advantage even more pronounced.
Although I can't be certain, I think the Hound may be getting nerfed down to 2s ports; it may even have negative factional requirements. Therefore I'm OK with it being such an outlier, because it really is a different, exclusive ship. Requiring national Tri-KOS would have the interesting side effect of greatly reducing/intensifying the native range of the most efficient ship in getting from A to B.
If the Hound is going to remain as-is, it definitely should have its top speed reduced. In my original suggestion no infiniturbo ship can go over 200 m/s except in a few rare cases, and most are in the 170 m/s - 190 m/s range.
One of the things I don't like about the Hog 2 is the very reason you state: it is a poor man's hound, widely available. The large speed advantage it holds over the Hog 1 seems incongruous in design to begin with. Not nerfing it would make this advantage even more pronounced.
Although I can't be certain, I think the Hound may be getting nerfed down to 2s ports; it may even have negative factional requirements. Therefore I'm OK with it being such an outlier, because it really is a different, exclusive ship. Requiring national Tri-KOS would have the interesting side effect of greatly reducing/intensifying the native range of the most efficient ship in getting from A to B.
If the Hound is going to remain as-is, it definitely should have its top speed reduced. In my original suggestion no infiniturbo ship can go over 200 m/s except in a few rare cases, and most are in the 170 m/s - 190 m/s range.
Is anyone going to touch the 'hot potato' in this story and say something about proms top speed?
I agree with meridian. I say leave the Warthog MkII as it is. What makes it so special is its availability. The UDV and the TPG Atlas X is too limited. Most people that would want to use the hog MkII as an interceptor won't have the required faction standing with TPG or UIT to get either of the those two ships.
I think making UDVs travel 225 m/s with a 55/s drain would a good way to create a utilitarian type ship, with all those scanners.
Whoever says proms need a speed adjustment needs to pass the spliff. Have you ever tried chasing anything in a prom? No, because that just doesn't happen. Proms are one of the easiest ships to disengage and get away from.
I think there's a better argument that valks and SVGs need to be taken back to 220 m/s to give the hound that supreme interceptor niche.
I think making UDVs travel 225 m/s with a 55/s drain would a good way to create a utilitarian type ship, with all those scanners.
Whoever says proms need a speed adjustment needs to pass the spliff. Have you ever tried chasing anything in a prom? No, because that just doesn't happen. Proms are one of the easiest ships to disengage and get away from.
I think there's a better argument that valks and SVGs need to be taken back to 220 m/s to give the hound that supreme interceptor niche.
Having an infini-turbo ship is essential for combat repairs. Apart from turboing nearly full-time, there is also energy required to charge the repair guns. There is also a "feature" of the repair guns that makes them discharge early when you run out of energy, which makes things worse with a high drain ship.
The interesting thing is that when in combat repairs, my turbo speed doesn't actually get that high. The only reason that the reduction in top turbo speed is a problem is because of how it impacts the acceleration curve. I whipped up a quick plugin to plot speed over time. Here is a sample plot of doing combat repairs during a hive skirmish (only repairing vultures and not the mining ships). I was flying a Hog 2 with large and small port repair guns.
In the first 150 seconds, I was repairing 3 vultures that were staying close together. Then I repaired a vulture far away, promptly followed by turboing back to the center of the sector. You can see that my speed only peaks at 190m/s, and there were only 3 occasions where it even got that high. Even with the current stats the way they are now, I am not able to keep up with a turboing vulture and have to wait for it to drop out of turbo to be able to get close enough for the repair.
The other consideration is that if the top turbo speed of the hogs are nerfed without nerfing the hound, then the hound would be OP with no infiniturbo ship to rival it. Of course, this is only a problem if the hound becomes pirate exclusive.
The interesting thing is that when in combat repairs, my turbo speed doesn't actually get that high. The only reason that the reduction in top turbo speed is a problem is because of how it impacts the acceleration curve. I whipped up a quick plugin to plot speed over time. Here is a sample plot of doing combat repairs during a hive skirmish (only repairing vultures and not the mining ships). I was flying a Hog 2 with large and small port repair guns.
In the first 150 seconds, I was repairing 3 vultures that were staying close together. Then I repaired a vulture far away, promptly followed by turboing back to the center of the sector. You can see that my speed only peaks at 190m/s, and there were only 3 occasions where it even got that high. Even with the current stats the way they are now, I am not able to keep up with a turboing vulture and have to wait for it to drop out of turbo to be able to get close enough for the repair.
The other consideration is that if the top turbo speed of the hogs are nerfed without nerfing the hound, then the hound would be OP with no infiniturbo ship to rival it. Of course, this is only a problem if the hound becomes pirate exclusive.
@darth
You can rationalize all day long why you think something akin to Phaserlights proposal isn't actually a nerf. Any reduction of a ships capabilities relative to other ships is a nerf, plain and simple.
It is simply a fact that the intent here is to make some of the most elite combat ships even more elite for the sake of "distinctiveness". It is also a fact that those who have recently argued in support of it (A-Dawg, EP) are exclusively combat oriented players. This is a pro-combat suggestion, and thus those who either don't like combat, aren't very good at it, or can't access the best ships, are going to suffer.
There really hasn't been strong argument for why a lack of more distinctiveness in ship choices is currently hurting the game, or why a broad nerfhammer to 80% of ships is somehow a good thing for the game. I think yours regarding encouraging more RP is perhaps the closest, but I still don't buy it, especially because of the people who have been at the forefront of promoting the suggestion. They stand to benefit directly and exclusively from this change because they'll be able to kill more players. Frankly, this suggestion is greed dressed up as an interior decoration proposal.
Regarding your RP argument: Traders being forced to be more sneaky and hire escorts is just another way of saying trading is going to be made more difficult. This change does nothing to counter the increased difficulty placed on the backs of all of those who fly the nerfed ships. Outside of creating more travel risk, it does little else to encourage people to RP as "escorts", something that doesn't happen much anyway primarily due to the low population and subsequent uneventfulness of most escort opportunities. It does nothing to give traders different options of being more "sneaky"; they will simply avoid (even more than before) traveling in areas that have combat activity. And it's not just traders, it's anyone who doesn't have access to the top ships. RP or not, encouraging a group of players to "not play" is a horrible idea.
I can see your RP argument working if there was a very healthy population of pilots. But for how things are now, with the sparseness and desolation of the universe, more players will feel disenfranchised than will reap the benefits.
Meridian is a great example of what will happen if this thing would be implemented. While most people will not be able to write plugins to create graphs and eloquently describe why nerfing *their* ship of choice is a bad idea, they will certainly feel the same way in game.
You can rationalize all day long why you think something akin to Phaserlights proposal isn't actually a nerf. Any reduction of a ships capabilities relative to other ships is a nerf, plain and simple.
It is simply a fact that the intent here is to make some of the most elite combat ships even more elite for the sake of "distinctiveness". It is also a fact that those who have recently argued in support of it (A-Dawg, EP) are exclusively combat oriented players. This is a pro-combat suggestion, and thus those who either don't like combat, aren't very good at it, or can't access the best ships, are going to suffer.
There really hasn't been strong argument for why a lack of more distinctiveness in ship choices is currently hurting the game, or why a broad nerfhammer to 80% of ships is somehow a good thing for the game. I think yours regarding encouraging more RP is perhaps the closest, but I still don't buy it, especially because of the people who have been at the forefront of promoting the suggestion. They stand to benefit directly and exclusively from this change because they'll be able to kill more players. Frankly, this suggestion is greed dressed up as an interior decoration proposal.
Regarding your RP argument: Traders being forced to be more sneaky and hire escorts is just another way of saying trading is going to be made more difficult. This change does nothing to counter the increased difficulty placed on the backs of all of those who fly the nerfed ships. Outside of creating more travel risk, it does little else to encourage people to RP as "escorts", something that doesn't happen much anyway primarily due to the low population and subsequent uneventfulness of most escort opportunities. It does nothing to give traders different options of being more "sneaky"; they will simply avoid (even more than before) traveling in areas that have combat activity. And it's not just traders, it's anyone who doesn't have access to the top ships. RP or not, encouraging a group of players to "not play" is a horrible idea.
I can see your RP argument working if there was a very healthy population of pilots. But for how things are now, with the sparseness and desolation of the universe, more players will feel disenfranchised than will reap the benefits.
Meridian is a great example of what will happen if this thing would be implemented. While most people will not be able to write plugins to create graphs and eloquently describe why nerfing *their* ship of choice is a bad idea, they will certainly feel the same way in game.
Well, I can't speak for others, but I can assure you that my argument for this suggestion is not a "greed dressed up as an interior decoration proposal". I have many friends that do nothing, but haul. Way more than I do friends that do combat, in fact. Unlike some of you, I do not come on the forums to defend or promote me and my friends' interests. Just wanted to get that ridiculous claim out of the way.
This change would encourage traders to work together more than they do now. This isn't a bad thing in my opinion. And while we are on the topic working together...
Outside of creating more travel risk, it does little else to encourage people to RP as "escorts", something that doesn't happen much anyway primarily due to the low population and subsequent uneventfulness of most escort opportunities.
And would you say that encouraging more new players to become pirates (which is what MOST new players want to do anyways) wouldn't encourage more vets to become escorts?
What stands VO apart from EVERY OTHER GAME THAT I HAVE EVER PLAYED (not just space sim-like games) is its combat. Not its mining. Not its manufacturing (though it is awesome). And definitely not its trading. We need to be thinking of ways to encourage combat more. Easy as that.
There will always be some people that just love hauling shit around, but hate being targets. I would advise for those players to stay in nation space until they're ready. Grey space by design should be LITTERED with dangerous pilots and just a sense of danger. Knowing that even skilled pirates don't have a chance in hell to catch you in grey space isn't good in my opinion. Those that want to haul through grey should be in a very cautious mindset and with the ships balanced the way they are that just won't ever be the case.
And you're right Greenwall. You can construe a number of arguments how any change to the game is a "nerf" of some sorts. I really don't care about that kind of jargon though. I'm just stating my opinion that until the ships stats (not just the way they look) provide some REAL distinctiveness, RP will suffer quite a bit.
This change would encourage traders to work together more than they do now. This isn't a bad thing in my opinion. And while we are on the topic working together...
Outside of creating more travel risk, it does little else to encourage people to RP as "escorts", something that doesn't happen much anyway primarily due to the low population and subsequent uneventfulness of most escort opportunities.
And would you say that encouraging more new players to become pirates (which is what MOST new players want to do anyways) wouldn't encourage more vets to become escorts?
What stands VO apart from EVERY OTHER GAME THAT I HAVE EVER PLAYED (not just space sim-like games) is its combat. Not its mining. Not its manufacturing (though it is awesome). And definitely not its trading. We need to be thinking of ways to encourage combat more. Easy as that.
There will always be some people that just love hauling shit around, but hate being targets. I would advise for those players to stay in nation space until they're ready. Grey space by design should be LITTERED with dangerous pilots and just a sense of danger. Knowing that even skilled pirates don't have a chance in hell to catch you in grey space isn't good in my opinion. Those that want to haul through grey should be in a very cautious mindset and with the ships balanced the way they are that just won't ever be the case.
And you're right Greenwall. You can construe a number of arguments how any change to the game is a "nerf" of some sorts. I really don't care about that kind of jargon though. I'm just stating my opinion that until the ships stats (not just the way they look) provide some REAL distinctiveness, RP will suffer quite a bit.
Well, I can't speak for others, but I can assure you that my argument for this suggestion is not a "greed dressed up as an interior decoration proposal".
That comment was directed at the initiators of the posts Incarnate linked to in the OP (EP, A-Dawg), not you.
That comment was directed at the initiators of the posts Incarnate linked to in the OP (EP, A-Dawg), not you.
@darth
And would you say that encouraging more new players to become pirates (which is what MOST new players want to do anyways) wouldn't encourage more vets to become escorts?
Yes, I would say one doesn't necessarily bring about the other, and more importantly it's been shown to happen in the game. Active groups of players ebb and flow all the time. Also, when FAMY recruitment was going full steam, newb pirates not only didn't encourage more escorts (because they weren't a threat), they also got slaughtered in droves. Making the slaughterers of said pirates even more capable will only increase how quickly those newbs decide to quit the game.
What stands VO apart from EVERY OTHER GAME THAT I HAVE EVER PLAYED (not just space sim-like games) is its combat. Not its mining. Not its manufacturing (though it is awesome). And definitely not its trading. We need to be thinking of ways to encourage combat more. Easy as that.
I totally agree with you that combat is VO's strong suit, but not the kind of combat that this suggestion would affect. This suggestion would make it MUCH easier for elite ships to annihilate already-easy-to-kill lesser ones. VO's combat is best when you have large groups of balanced skill and ship capability, and this suggestion would do absolutely nothing to encourage more of that.
Knowing that even skilled pirates don't have a chance in hell to catch you in grey space isn't good in my opinion.
Skilled pirates have many chances to kill, don't be ridiculous. They simply have to be in the right place at the right time. It just so happens that the universe is so huge and the populations so low that it makes it difficult to assert any influence outside of a single sector. That problem has nothing to do with the distinctiveness of ship speeds.
Those that want to haul through grey should be in a very cautious mindset and with the ships balanced the way they are that just won't ever be the case.
Well why don't we just cut all non elite combat ships top speeds in half then? Why give Traders any chance whatsoever to evade predators? I'll tell you why: because VO isn't space quake (even though I'd very much like it to be, lol). Non-combat play styles shouldn't be completely at the mercy of combat play styles, otherwise they will completely disappear.
Most traders I know are always very concerned when hauling valuable goods through Greyspace. If they are hauling non-valuable goods, while they are obviously less concerned about the risk, there still is risk. Even I get nervous on the rare occasion I truck around in a moth or a taur beladen with weapons without an escort. This is, of course, excluding the most valuable parts which are typically hauled under Trident protection (another discussion entirely).
And would you say that encouraging more new players to become pirates (which is what MOST new players want to do anyways) wouldn't encourage more vets to become escorts?
Yes, I would say one doesn't necessarily bring about the other, and more importantly it's been shown to happen in the game. Active groups of players ebb and flow all the time. Also, when FAMY recruitment was going full steam, newb pirates not only didn't encourage more escorts (because they weren't a threat), they also got slaughtered in droves. Making the slaughterers of said pirates even more capable will only increase how quickly those newbs decide to quit the game.
What stands VO apart from EVERY OTHER GAME THAT I HAVE EVER PLAYED (not just space sim-like games) is its combat. Not its mining. Not its manufacturing (though it is awesome). And definitely not its trading. We need to be thinking of ways to encourage combat more. Easy as that.
I totally agree with you that combat is VO's strong suit, but not the kind of combat that this suggestion would affect. This suggestion would make it MUCH easier for elite ships to annihilate already-easy-to-kill lesser ones. VO's combat is best when you have large groups of balanced skill and ship capability, and this suggestion would do absolutely nothing to encourage more of that.
Knowing that even skilled pirates don't have a chance in hell to catch you in grey space isn't good in my opinion.
Skilled pirates have many chances to kill, don't be ridiculous. They simply have to be in the right place at the right time. It just so happens that the universe is so huge and the populations so low that it makes it difficult to assert any influence outside of a single sector. That problem has nothing to do with the distinctiveness of ship speeds.
Those that want to haul through grey should be in a very cautious mindset and with the ships balanced the way they are that just won't ever be the case.
Well why don't we just cut all non elite combat ships top speeds in half then? Why give Traders any chance whatsoever to evade predators? I'll tell you why: because VO isn't space quake (even though I'd very much like it to be, lol). Non-combat play styles shouldn't be completely at the mercy of combat play styles, otherwise they will completely disappear.
Most traders I know are always very concerned when hauling valuable goods through Greyspace. If they are hauling non-valuable goods, while they are obviously less concerned about the risk, there still is risk. Even I get nervous on the rare occasion I truck around in a moth or a taur beladen with weapons without an escort. This is, of course, excluding the most valuable parts which are typically hauled under Trident protection (another discussion entirely).
@Greenwall
In 2004/5 we had real interceptor ships going 240 m/s. The fastest cargo ship was Atlas-X with the same stats it has now and 210 m/s top speed.
All other cargo ships had infiniturbo and 200 m/s top speed except behemoth which was capped at 150 m/s.
Interceptor top speed got nerfed to 225 m/s, behemoth speed got increased to 160 m/s and none of the other ships were touched by this speed cap.
Frankly, if you ask most of the vets from those days, they will tell you that it was nearly impossible to catch Atlas-x with any interceptor then as it is today.
This is just the part related to interceptor vs cargo ships but the more important part is that none of the other combat ships were touched with the speed nerf stick so this created quite an imbalance.
I would also disagree about vets wanting to chase and kill cargo ships easier.
VO PVP combat is great and our main interest is in returning to the balance that once existed among combat ships in VO.
Flying interceptor class of ship is a choice - you sacrifice armor and firepower for speed and mobility and only thing you need is speed, speed to close on your target fast and to move away fast. A few milisec. faster closing on your enemy makes a ton of difference. With 240 m/s we had that. After the top speed nerf, not so much.
In 2004/5 we had real interceptor ships going 240 m/s. The fastest cargo ship was Atlas-X with the same stats it has now and 210 m/s top speed.
All other cargo ships had infiniturbo and 200 m/s top speed except behemoth which was capped at 150 m/s.
Interceptor top speed got nerfed to 225 m/s, behemoth speed got increased to 160 m/s and none of the other ships were touched by this speed cap.
Frankly, if you ask most of the vets from those days, they will tell you that it was nearly impossible to catch Atlas-x with any interceptor then as it is today.
This is just the part related to interceptor vs cargo ships but the more important part is that none of the other combat ships were touched with the speed nerf stick so this created quite an imbalance.
I would also disagree about vets wanting to chase and kill cargo ships easier.
VO PVP combat is great and our main interest is in returning to the balance that once existed among combat ships in VO.
Flying interceptor class of ship is a choice - you sacrifice armor and firepower for speed and mobility and only thing you need is speed, speed to close on your target fast and to move away fast. A few milisec. faster closing on your enemy makes a ton of difference. With 240 m/s we had that. After the top speed nerf, not so much.
@bojan
I get the "good old days" argument. It's just not strong enough for me to agree with a total revamp, especially considering how the game has played out since then. Since I started in 2008, certainly I never found it irritating that the fastest ships in the game weren't even faster. If I had been around before the reduction, maybe I would feel differently. But you need to remember that 99% of people playing now also weren't around, and I think the majority of them will see this as a HUGE give to already capable, highly skilled vet combat pilots.
I get the "good old days" argument. It's just not strong enough for me to agree with a total revamp, especially considering how the game has played out since then. Since I started in 2008, certainly I never found it irritating that the fastest ships in the game weren't even faster. If I had been around before the reduction, maybe I would feel differently. But you need to remember that 99% of people playing now also weren't around, and I think the majority of them will see this as a HUGE give to already capable, highly skilled vet combat pilots.
I have to agree that going back to pre-nerf ship speeds would cater to an already skilled vet playerbase. It wouldn't really help player retention. Noobs don't know the difference, and widening the speed gap would make a lot of trader types and newer players rage quit. And this is coming from a pirate who hates traders being able to run in half of the ships.
If the Hound is going to remain as-is, it definitely should have its top speed reduced.
The Hound was implemented long after the speed cap, as a top speed/regenerative turbo interceptor that costs 100k a pop and has free bus level stats in other areas. It does not have any need for a top speed nerf. And you certainly haven't presented any basis for such.
Though that is in keeping with the amount of reasoning that went on to much of the rest of your suggestion apparently. For example, why wouldn't the Aeolus light moth-which literally nobody uses-get a small increase in speed over base moths based on its smaller cargo?
And Bojan, the moth was not 150 at the time of the speed cap, it was 180. The rest of your post is basically "valks are too slow"...yeah right.
if the top turbo speed of the hogs are nerfed without nerfing the hound, then the hound would be OP with no infiniturbo ship to rival it. Of course, this is only a problem if the hound becomes pirate exclusive.
Um, no. Being factionally exclusive would be a reason to keep (or buff) the Hound at a level that might otherwise be OP. The reason the valk and prom are the way they are (in their respective roles) is because of that.
The Hound was implemented long after the speed cap, as a top speed/regenerative turbo interceptor that costs 100k a pop and has free bus level stats in other areas. It does not have any need for a top speed nerf. And you certainly haven't presented any basis for such.
Though that is in keeping with the amount of reasoning that went on to much of the rest of your suggestion apparently. For example, why wouldn't the Aeolus light moth-which literally nobody uses-get a small increase in speed over base moths based on its smaller cargo?
And Bojan, the moth was not 150 at the time of the speed cap, it was 180. The rest of your post is basically "valks are too slow"...yeah right.
if the top turbo speed of the hogs are nerfed without nerfing the hound, then the hound would be OP with no infiniturbo ship to rival it. Of course, this is only a problem if the hound becomes pirate exclusive.
Um, no. Being factionally exclusive would be a reason to keep (or buff) the Hound at a level that might otherwise be OP. The reason the valk and prom are the way they are (in their respective roles) is because of that.
Though that is in keeping with the amount of reasoning that went on to much of the rest of your suggestion apparently
Wasn't trying to be a Nostradamus on this; more 'let's get some numbers up so we can begin talking about what a broad top speed reduction might look like'.
I'm not opposed to the Aeolus moth getting a small speed boost, but I wasn't considering any buffs in my suggestion, only reductions. The main point is to add a little bit of "noise" to the top speeds of the mid-range ships, while taking the average top speed of an infiniturbo ship below 200.
Wasn't trying to be a Nostradamus on this; more 'let's get some numbers up so we can begin talking about what a broad top speed reduction might look like'.
I'm not opposed to the Aeolus moth getting a small speed boost, but I wasn't considering any buffs in my suggestion, only reductions. The main point is to add a little bit of "noise" to the top speeds of the mid-range ships, while taking the average top speed of an infiniturbo ship below 200.
The main point is to add a little bit of "noise" to the top speeds of the mid-range ships, while taking the average top speed of an infiniturbo ship below 200.
On the one hand, that goal isn't objectionable to me - it seems nice in theory, buffs (relatively speaking) the ships I prefer, and I'm never going to have to fly any of those pieces of shit anyway. On the other hand, you've proposed things that when focused on in the context of several individual ships, just don't make any damn sense...so, at least as to those, a speed nerf/revision/whateverwecallit doesn't seem appropriate.
Here's the bigger issue: the most frequent gripe I hear from noobs is about how slow and annoying it is to get anywhere. Not that their ships are too easy to catch by vets flying fast ships, mind you, but that in terms of raw time spent going from point A to point B, VO is too big and boring and the ships are too slow. That's unlikely to get any better if we decide the current speed cap can't be moved and the diversity in speeds is so important that, gee, they'll just have to spend MORE time to go from A to B.
Indeed, there are two types of balance here. The first one, relative speeds among ships, was thrown all out of whack by the cap. The second, however, was 'how long should most ships have to spend to go from point A to point B and how annoying should turboing during that time be'...it hasn't really ever been changed. But what you're suggesting will change that second balance, unequivocally for the worse, because...I'm not sure, speed diversity? Affirmative action for interceptors? Maybe you should look at the numbers for changing all the distances between stations, WHs, and warp in/out points to preserve that second type of balance in the face of a broad reduction in top speeds?
On the one hand, that goal isn't objectionable to me - it seems nice in theory, buffs (relatively speaking) the ships I prefer, and I'm never going to have to fly any of those pieces of shit anyway. On the other hand, you've proposed things that when focused on in the context of several individual ships, just don't make any damn sense...so, at least as to those, a speed nerf/revision/whateverwecallit doesn't seem appropriate.
Here's the bigger issue: the most frequent gripe I hear from noobs is about how slow and annoying it is to get anywhere. Not that their ships are too easy to catch by vets flying fast ships, mind you, but that in terms of raw time spent going from point A to point B, VO is too big and boring and the ships are too slow. That's unlikely to get any better if we decide the current speed cap can't be moved and the diversity in speeds is so important that, gee, they'll just have to spend MORE time to go from A to B.
Indeed, there are two types of balance here. The first one, relative speeds among ships, was thrown all out of whack by the cap. The second, however, was 'how long should most ships have to spend to go from point A to point B and how annoying should turboing during that time be'...it hasn't really ever been changed. But what you're suggesting will change that second balance, unequivocally for the worse, because...I'm not sure, speed diversity? Affirmative action for interceptors? Maybe you should look at the numbers for changing all the distances between stations, WHs, and warp in/out points to preserve that second type of balance in the face of a broad reduction in top speeds?
I think the very last point that Phaserlight made is the position that I'm taking on this. I don't thinik that low end ships need to be lower, nor do I think the high end ships need to be faster. But I do think that the mid-ranged ships need a re-purposing. Even if that means increasing the speed on some of them.
There just needs to be significantly more distinction in the middle class of ships.
There just needs to be significantly more distinction in the middle class of ships.