Forums » Suggestions
I'm not sure about the statement that a good player can avoid flares. Try fighting a good player who is USING flares.
I'm just saying that if you're in a light fighter, as was discussed earlier, and you see flares incoming, if you're on top of your game, you can generally avoid them. While I know it's true that some people are exceptionally skilled with flares, some people are skilled with other weapons. Does this mean that we need to weaken that weapon? No.
Forrest said: To stimulate additional thoughts on the valk and the other ship designs I will be compiling and posting some images which put each ship side by side from various angles.
You ROCK, Forrest! Go on with yer bad self! I can't wait to see the images side-by-side!
You ROCK, Forrest! Go on with yer bad self! I can't wait to see the images side-by-side!
Re: Harry Seldon
"Generally" is not "always". When I'm in a light fighter (Valk or IBG), I can usually dodge plenty of flares - until one manages to tag me. Once I get tagged w/ a flare, I get spun around & can't regain control of my ship before the next flare hits me.
So, when I'm in a light fighter, I can dodge maybe 75% of the flares that are shot at me. But I have to dodge 100% if I want to survive.
That said... sorry LeberMac, I'm not afraid of your TriFlare Valk. Valks don't have the thrust to handle the mass of 3, or even 2, flares. In my experience they have a hard enough time with 1 flare.
"Generally" is not "always". When I'm in a light fighter (Valk or IBG), I can usually dodge plenty of flares - until one manages to tag me. Once I get tagged w/ a flare, I get spun around & can't regain control of my ship before the next flare hits me.
So, when I'm in a light fighter, I can dodge maybe 75% of the flares that are shot at me. But I have to dodge 100% if I want to survive.
That said... sorry LeberMac, I'm not afraid of your TriFlare Valk. Valks don't have the thrust to handle the mass of 3, or even 2, flares. In my experience they have a hard enough time with 1 flare.
Well I didn't have time to read through the whole thread, but I looked at CP's initial post and some of the responses. I'm going to have to agree with CP on this one.
First of all I'm sure the devs are well aware of this problem. It sounds like there's a lot of serious restructuring that is being done to various parts of the game, to help boost the fun factor of the missions or whatever. But still, I certainly hope that some of these balance issues will be resolved in the process. I'm hoping to get back into Vendetta knowing that there has been some progress in ship balance. To me that would make gameplay more fun than anything else. Just not having to be frustrated with balance all the time.
While I haven't played Vendetta Online since the beta (I'm going to return soon though), the general consensus seems to be that the Warthog is too sluggish right now. And after looking through some of the Vendetta Wiki ship stats I can see where they're coming from.
The Warthog was my last favorite ship in Vendetta. It certainly didn't make a good chase ship because of the AGT, which is a good thing for its class in terms of balance, but at the same time it always had the ability to hold its own against both fighters and bombers. As CP has pointed out many times, it's a medium assault ship. It should be able to attack and defend itself, but without outperforming any of the other classes. That's exactly what the Warthog did in the beta. And to hear that Atlases now win over Warthogs in battle leaves me with much concern and sadness.
The new mass/thrust/torque system has obviously thrown off the balance of the game. And although a lot of time might have been placed in making most of the major ships as fair as possible, it's apparent that there are still some issues floating around. So here's my suggestion...
First off, remember the performance properties of each ship before the new mass/thrust/torque system existed. I know it might sound like we're thinking backwards here, but just hear me out. Yes it wasn't perfect, but they seemed to work out much better than they do now. Fighters were fighters, trading ships had uniquely large cargo spaces, and bombers were bombers.
Fast forward to today. I'm not quite certain of this, but it seems like the stock or empty version of each ship is pretty close to their beta properties, with a few exceptions of course. So where things begin to fall apart is when you start to equip weapons on to them. Most of the weapons simply weigh too much for some of these ships. The best solution as I see it would be to increase the thrust/torque of some of the medium ships (namely the Warthog and Hornet) to compensate for the weight of the weapons.
Let's take the Hornet for example. You've got this ship that has 4 S-ports. Each port has the potential of increasing the ship's overall mass considerably, depending on the weapons chosen by the player. Now you might recommend that the player stick with very light weapons only. But then what's the point of having all those ports there to begin with?! Realistically speaking, if you even try to use up those ports with a decent combo of weapons, you're going to find that the ship performs like a supertanker in battle. This not only applies to the Hornet, but also the Warthog.
Look at it this way. Medium assault ships are built to hold more weapons, or larger weapons, without having to sacrifice performance dramatically. There's some understanding that they won't perform like a fighter because of their heightened firepower. But at the same time the weight of the weapons shouldn't overpower the ship's ability to pull that weight. There's a fine balance between a light ship, a medium ship, and a heavy ship class. Right now it sounds like the medium ships are more like mini-bombers than anything else.
So really, my suggestion isn't all that different than CP's. An increase in thrust and torque for both the Warthog and Hornet would be very much appreciated, in addition to some of the other changes that were mentioned.
First of all I'm sure the devs are well aware of this problem. It sounds like there's a lot of serious restructuring that is being done to various parts of the game, to help boost the fun factor of the missions or whatever. But still, I certainly hope that some of these balance issues will be resolved in the process. I'm hoping to get back into Vendetta knowing that there has been some progress in ship balance. To me that would make gameplay more fun than anything else. Just not having to be frustrated with balance all the time.
While I haven't played Vendetta Online since the beta (I'm going to return soon though), the general consensus seems to be that the Warthog is too sluggish right now. And after looking through some of the Vendetta Wiki ship stats I can see where they're coming from.
The Warthog was my last favorite ship in Vendetta. It certainly didn't make a good chase ship because of the AGT, which is a good thing for its class in terms of balance, but at the same time it always had the ability to hold its own against both fighters and bombers. As CP has pointed out many times, it's a medium assault ship. It should be able to attack and defend itself, but without outperforming any of the other classes. That's exactly what the Warthog did in the beta. And to hear that Atlases now win over Warthogs in battle leaves me with much concern and sadness.
The new mass/thrust/torque system has obviously thrown off the balance of the game. And although a lot of time might have been placed in making most of the major ships as fair as possible, it's apparent that there are still some issues floating around. So here's my suggestion...
First off, remember the performance properties of each ship before the new mass/thrust/torque system existed. I know it might sound like we're thinking backwards here, but just hear me out. Yes it wasn't perfect, but they seemed to work out much better than they do now. Fighters were fighters, trading ships had uniquely large cargo spaces, and bombers were bombers.
Fast forward to today. I'm not quite certain of this, but it seems like the stock or empty version of each ship is pretty close to their beta properties, with a few exceptions of course. So where things begin to fall apart is when you start to equip weapons on to them. Most of the weapons simply weigh too much for some of these ships. The best solution as I see it would be to increase the thrust/torque of some of the medium ships (namely the Warthog and Hornet) to compensate for the weight of the weapons.
Let's take the Hornet for example. You've got this ship that has 4 S-ports. Each port has the potential of increasing the ship's overall mass considerably, depending on the weapons chosen by the player. Now you might recommend that the player stick with very light weapons only. But then what's the point of having all those ports there to begin with?! Realistically speaking, if you even try to use up those ports with a decent combo of weapons, you're going to find that the ship performs like a supertanker in battle. This not only applies to the Hornet, but also the Warthog.
Look at it this way. Medium assault ships are built to hold more weapons, or larger weapons, without having to sacrifice performance dramatically. There's some understanding that they won't perform like a fighter because of their heightened firepower. But at the same time the weight of the weapons shouldn't overpower the ship's ability to pull that weight. There's a fine balance between a light ship, a medium ship, and a heavy ship class. Right now it sounds like the medium ships are more like mini-bombers than anything else.
So really, my suggestion isn't all that different than CP's. An increase in thrust and torque for both the Warthog and Hornet would be very much appreciated, in addition to some of the other changes that were mentioned.
The (cargo) phlying phallus vs. the (assault) candy-assed thunder pig issue to the side for a moment, I feel the need to weigh in on some of the less than supportable suggestions RE Dr. Lecter's favorite ship: that flying piece of itani excrement, the Valk.
Ignoring the stock valk, since I couldn't care less about how stupidly you nerf IT, the Vengance: cargo capacity of 4, far less than the lowly Cent Mk II (11). This ship carries about NOTHING. Even for start of the week CtC, nobody would fly this thing solo; nor is anyone trading in a Vengance. CP's suggestion to nerf it's tiny bit O' cargo space is gratutious: •STAMP-OF-DEATH• to the cargo nerfing here (double such stamp to nerfing the IDF Valk's pathetic cargo of 2...just leave it the hell alone, I mean, really).
Carrying on with the Vengance, it's an overarmored variant. One that pays for it in an extra 100kg of mass on a ship that's broad and slow to dodge already. It also already has the 55 non-infinboost drain appros to a more combat worthy ship. So, no need to suck its battery down faster...can we say Corvus Vult? I love the idea of making a Combat 8/+700 faction, nation specific SPECIAL ship so heavily drained that it never reaches its top speed of 240. Oh, wait, that's a stupid idea (insert Dr. Lecter's stamp here for any more drain on the Vengance). Add 5 or 10 thrust? Maybe, though the armored version might be the worst candidate for more agility. That said, 5 thrust might still be a good idea, given the profile on Valks.
Next on the chopping block, Leber's and Lecter's favorite critter, the Rune. Cargo of 8.../me is shocked to see such a HUGE number, until he reads the description. "Increased Hold" variant! Holy crap, that's why it is what it is! If anything, the rune should have 10 cargo, still less that that favorite Cent Mk II. And no, the suggestion of reducing all such "light" fighters to tiny amounts of cargo space, if any, is not a sound response. Tell me again why one (highly adavnced and superior, of course) race should have special ships that actually hold cargo? (even halving the proms would leave the Mk II with 50 drain and 20 cu; effectively replacing the rune as the CtC of choice; as it is now, you use a Prom Mk II and you carry more than 4 times the rune, at a cost of speed). The claim that these ships SHOULD require backup to use for things like ctc (lets be honest, that's the only thing that could be motivating this cargo cut crap; nobody trades anything in valks or cents) isn't very convincing at the moment, especially for we Serco, who are constantly outnumbered. There aren't enough players to be forcing people off their "go it alone" Runes and Cent Mk IIs. Talk to me about this foolishness when the player count, oh, quadruples or more.
On to the more troubling Valk nerfing: the Rune's 50 drain. This is a carrying variant of a special ship, and like a lot of carrying ships, it has infinboost. It pays for that by having a speed of 220 rather than 240 like every other valk, not to mention the time it takes to hit 220 with a hold full of xith. Even without the CtC hauling application, the loss of an infinboost option in the valk line makes me want to puke. Again, see Prom Mk II (50 drain) Also, a Rune is no different from a Cent Mk II in this respect: speed cut in exchange for infinboost. On a convience side, the Rune is a good all around ship; I can travel in it because of the low drain, and I can fight in it because of the armor and ports (and I can die in it because of the profile and shitty thrust, but that's not the point at the moment). Take home message: leave the damn Rune the hell alone at WORST. At best, give it another 5 thrust!
Finally, the IDF valk. Cargo is a non-issue, just leave its 2 little units the hell alone, since they're doing NOTHING 99.9% of the time, and every once in a loooooong while, they are nice to have. Drain: 55 is fine, again trying to avoid the Corvus Vult problem in a top of the line ship of a major nation. You really want to cut the range on it while maintaining its speedy fighter w/o legs bit, give it 60 drain and 250 top speed so it could actually catch something at close range (make the seekers faster as needed, nobody really worries about the SF most of the time anyway ;). Most importantly, the IDF needs at least 10 more thrust. I could see lopping off at most 500 armor for that tweak (scp currently sits at a whopping 2100 armor. I'll only say this once more: the Valk is NOT a (1) "light" fighter, it's a fighter; (2) a normal ship, it's the most kick-ass weapon platform the Itani nation can produce... WTF are you thinking making it a glorified cent variant with a huge profile?! HUGE •STAMP-OF-DEATH• here for nerfing of the IDF valk, excepting a 500-800 armor cut in exchange for no LESS than 10N of thrust more.
To summarize: (1) each nation specific ship class should have 1 variant that has increased hold and 50 drain... ? (2) the Valks as a class suck far too much, and while earlier valk versions were too uber, a 5N thrust increase for all (except maybe the Vengance, which would get less or none, and the IDF, which needs 10N) would offset the whole "back end of a 50's Ford" profile problems, making them the exceedingly nimble fighters (note I left off the "light" part of that) they should be. (3) The cargo space is good for the current set up of the game and the number of players we have now. The only meaningful cargo hold on a valk, 8 for the Rune, is still dwarfed by the Prom Mk IIs 40, and far out of proportion to the fighter vs. heavy Serco bomber size differences.
/givedeath Valk-nerfers alot
Dr. Lecter
Ignoring the stock valk, since I couldn't care less about how stupidly you nerf IT, the Vengance: cargo capacity of 4, far less than the lowly Cent Mk II (11). This ship carries about NOTHING. Even for start of the week CtC, nobody would fly this thing solo; nor is anyone trading in a Vengance. CP's suggestion to nerf it's tiny bit O' cargo space is gratutious: •STAMP-OF-DEATH• to the cargo nerfing here (double such stamp to nerfing the IDF Valk's pathetic cargo of 2...just leave it the hell alone, I mean, really).
Carrying on with the Vengance, it's an overarmored variant. One that pays for it in an extra 100kg of mass on a ship that's broad and slow to dodge already. It also already has the 55 non-infinboost drain appros to a more combat worthy ship. So, no need to suck its battery down faster...can we say Corvus Vult? I love the idea of making a Combat 8/+700 faction, nation specific SPECIAL ship so heavily drained that it never reaches its top speed of 240. Oh, wait, that's a stupid idea (insert Dr. Lecter's stamp here for any more drain on the Vengance). Add 5 or 10 thrust? Maybe, though the armored version might be the worst candidate for more agility. That said, 5 thrust might still be a good idea, given the profile on Valks.
Next on the chopping block, Leber's and Lecter's favorite critter, the Rune. Cargo of 8.../me is shocked to see such a HUGE number, until he reads the description. "Increased Hold" variant! Holy crap, that's why it is what it is! If anything, the rune should have 10 cargo, still less that that favorite Cent Mk II. And no, the suggestion of reducing all such "light" fighters to tiny amounts of cargo space, if any, is not a sound response. Tell me again why one (highly adavnced and superior, of course) race should have special ships that actually hold cargo? (even halving the proms would leave the Mk II with 50 drain and 20 cu; effectively replacing the rune as the CtC of choice; as it is now, you use a Prom Mk II and you carry more than 4 times the rune, at a cost of speed). The claim that these ships SHOULD require backup to use for things like ctc (lets be honest, that's the only thing that could be motivating this cargo cut crap; nobody trades anything in valks or cents) isn't very convincing at the moment, especially for we Serco, who are constantly outnumbered. There aren't enough players to be forcing people off their "go it alone" Runes and Cent Mk IIs. Talk to me about this foolishness when the player count, oh, quadruples or more.
On to the more troubling Valk nerfing: the Rune's 50 drain. This is a carrying variant of a special ship, and like a lot of carrying ships, it has infinboost. It pays for that by having a speed of 220 rather than 240 like every other valk, not to mention the time it takes to hit 220 with a hold full of xith. Even without the CtC hauling application, the loss of an infinboost option in the valk line makes me want to puke. Again, see Prom Mk II (50 drain) Also, a Rune is no different from a Cent Mk II in this respect: speed cut in exchange for infinboost. On a convience side, the Rune is a good all around ship; I can travel in it because of the low drain, and I can fight in it because of the armor and ports (and I can die in it because of the profile and shitty thrust, but that's not the point at the moment). Take home message: leave the damn Rune the hell alone at WORST. At best, give it another 5 thrust!
Finally, the IDF valk. Cargo is a non-issue, just leave its 2 little units the hell alone, since they're doing NOTHING 99.9% of the time, and every once in a loooooong while, they are nice to have. Drain: 55 is fine, again trying to avoid the Corvus Vult problem in a top of the line ship of a major nation. You really want to cut the range on it while maintaining its speedy fighter w/o legs bit, give it 60 drain and 250 top speed so it could actually catch something at close range (make the seekers faster as needed, nobody really worries about the SF most of the time anyway ;). Most importantly, the IDF needs at least 10 more thrust. I could see lopping off at most 500 armor for that tweak (scp currently sits at a whopping 2100 armor. I'll only say this once more: the Valk is NOT a (1) "light" fighter, it's a fighter; (2) a normal ship, it's the most kick-ass weapon platform the Itani nation can produce... WTF are you thinking making it a glorified cent variant with a huge profile?! HUGE •STAMP-OF-DEATH• here for nerfing of the IDF valk, excepting a 500-800 armor cut in exchange for no LESS than 10N of thrust more.
To summarize: (1) each nation specific ship class should have 1 variant that has increased hold and 50 drain... ? (2) the Valks as a class suck far too much, and while earlier valk versions were too uber, a 5N thrust increase for all (except maybe the Vengance, which would get less or none, and the IDF, which needs 10N) would offset the whole "back end of a 50's Ford" profile problems, making them the exceedingly nimble fighters (note I left off the "light" part of that) they should be. (3) The cargo space is good for the current set up of the game and the number of players we have now. The only meaningful cargo hold on a valk, 8 for the Rune, is still dwarfed by the Prom Mk IIs 40, and far out of proportion to the fighter vs. heavy Serco bomber size differences.
/givedeath Valk-nerfers alot
Dr. Lecter
Ignoring the fact that Dr. Lector seems to think that everything is a personal attack against him, and chooses to attack me for it, let me address his issues.
The main problem that I have with all of Lector's issues is that he takes the Valkyrie out of proportion with my other suggestions. And let me reiterate that my suggestions are not absolutes, and they're definitely not set in stone. If you can give me a good argument for why you believe that I should change my suggestion, I'll consider it, but will defend my point.
My balance suggestions were based on the idea that a ship types should dictate the roles that the ships are used for. Light fighters (being the Centurion, the Vulture, and the Valkyrie) should be geared for fast, slashing attacks, as well as dogfighting. Basically, the designers basically design the fighter around the engine(s). Weapon space is a second priority, so light fighters tend to have lighter armaments, light armor, and no space is saved for cargo space. Cargo would just slow the fighter down. Heavy fighters (Prom, Rag, etc) dedicate all their space to armor and weapons, but they have weak engines, and their cargo space is less than equivalent sized cargo ship. Medium fighters are exactly in between the lights and the heavies. They have heavier weapons than the lights, and stronger engines than the heavies, but their armor is weaker than the heavies, and they're not as fast as the lights. They're the only really multi-role fighters in the game.
But my issue with the Valk series in general is they're really medium fighters acting like lights. Their armor is stronger than the Warthog's, they (used to be) blindingly fast, and when it comes down to the numbers, they have stronger weapons than the Hog. On top of that, the cargo space was almost equivalent. Don't you think that there's some imbalance to that? Basically my experience with the hog in early release was that the hog was mincemeat in comparison to the valk. I put a lot of work in being the best hog pilot I could and try to level the imbalance just through being a more skillful pilot. I was never able to level the gap.
In CtC, it was painfully obvious that the Rune Valk was the ship to fly (hell, if Lector's a Serco and he's flying an Itani Valk, then something must be wrong). It had the weapons to take out the transport extremely quickly, had the cargo space to grab a significant amount of xith, and had the speed to get away faster than defenders could chase. NO ship should be able to do this. Light fighters might be able to outrun defenders, but they shouldn't be able to cart away xith. Heavy fighters might be able to kill the trans and get xith, but they would have a tough time running. This encourages team tactics, and not the every-man-for-himself mentality.
It's because of CtC that I suggest getting rid of the cargo space from the lights. Notice that I struck cargo space from all of the combat fighters. The lights have a heavy hit to cargo space, but I've explained why. The only situation that I can see giving cargo space to light fighters is if they take relatively heavy hits to other stats. Loss of weapon ports. Loss to thrust. Think about it, if there's no space for anything in the fighter, than to make room for cargo, then they have to remove other components. Taking out weapons and removing armor is easy. Removing a large engine and replacing it with a smaller engine is another way. So I'd be willing to concede the Rune Valk infiniboost and 8cu of cargo space if its armor is reduced to below 6000, it does not receive the thrust increase, and is reduced to 1 or 2 weapon ports. The Centurion II would likewise see an armor reduction to below 4000 to keep infiniboost and have 6-8 cargo space (11 is just too much).
But I'm not willing to make the Valk an uberfighter for every single situation. It should have an advantage in dogfight-style combat, but be at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to cargo and CtC. It would need a partner flying a ship with cargo space (a medium or a heavy) to cart off the xith.
Because the new handling of thrust and mass have suddenly made the Valk a sluggish fighter, I'm quite happy to give the Valk thrust. I'd be happy to start fighting Valks again, but not if they're the perfect uber fighter. I mean, I want kills too, and I don't want to be forced into using signficantly different tactics (like having to switch from my favorite medium fighters to a light fighter).
Even with the reduction in cargo space, I don't feel that I'm "nerfing" the valk in any way. I am giving a pretty heavy nerf to the Prometheus, which is too powerful for every situation. Even though halving the cargo would still leave it with a signficant amount of cargo space, it also loses thrust and spin torque, making it more sluggish. I think that's more of a nerf than anything I'm suggesting for the Valk. Yes, the Valks and the Centurions do lose a lot of cargo space, but I don't think that it is in any way gratuitous. I did consider those suggestions very carefully, and in the context of the rest of my suggestions, they make a lot of sense.
Each ship suddenly has a very well defined purpose. That's something that Vendetta is definitely missing. All ships (except a couple that were crappy to begin with) are basically multi-purpose ships. They all can fight, and they all can tow cargo, or at least enough that they can solo in PvP. The Rune Valk, the Centurion II, and much of the Prometheus series are at the top of this category. And look at my Atlas X. I get more kills in that than I can in the Warthog. Heck, I routinely beat the pants off of Warthogs. That's how multi-purpose all these ships are. These suggestions create defined roles for each fighter, and at least in theory, they should be pretty balanced to each other. A Centurion wouldn't necessarily be able to take on a Valkyrie with a high degree of success, but the Warthog pulls closer to the Valk and can maybe keep a 1:1 or a 2:3 win:loss ratio against an equal pilot. The Prometheus would drop back quite a bit, and hopefully other fighters would be able to get close to a 1:1 victory ratio against it.
The main problem that I have with all of Lector's issues is that he takes the Valkyrie out of proportion with my other suggestions. And let me reiterate that my suggestions are not absolutes, and they're definitely not set in stone. If you can give me a good argument for why you believe that I should change my suggestion, I'll consider it, but will defend my point.
My balance suggestions were based on the idea that a ship types should dictate the roles that the ships are used for. Light fighters (being the Centurion, the Vulture, and the Valkyrie) should be geared for fast, slashing attacks, as well as dogfighting. Basically, the designers basically design the fighter around the engine(s). Weapon space is a second priority, so light fighters tend to have lighter armaments, light armor, and no space is saved for cargo space. Cargo would just slow the fighter down. Heavy fighters (Prom, Rag, etc) dedicate all their space to armor and weapons, but they have weak engines, and their cargo space is less than equivalent sized cargo ship. Medium fighters are exactly in between the lights and the heavies. They have heavier weapons than the lights, and stronger engines than the heavies, but their armor is weaker than the heavies, and they're not as fast as the lights. They're the only really multi-role fighters in the game.
But my issue with the Valk series in general is they're really medium fighters acting like lights. Their armor is stronger than the Warthog's, they (used to be) blindingly fast, and when it comes down to the numbers, they have stronger weapons than the Hog. On top of that, the cargo space was almost equivalent. Don't you think that there's some imbalance to that? Basically my experience with the hog in early release was that the hog was mincemeat in comparison to the valk. I put a lot of work in being the best hog pilot I could and try to level the imbalance just through being a more skillful pilot. I was never able to level the gap.
In CtC, it was painfully obvious that the Rune Valk was the ship to fly (hell, if Lector's a Serco and he's flying an Itani Valk, then something must be wrong). It had the weapons to take out the transport extremely quickly, had the cargo space to grab a significant amount of xith, and had the speed to get away faster than defenders could chase. NO ship should be able to do this. Light fighters might be able to outrun defenders, but they shouldn't be able to cart away xith. Heavy fighters might be able to kill the trans and get xith, but they would have a tough time running. This encourages team tactics, and not the every-man-for-himself mentality.
It's because of CtC that I suggest getting rid of the cargo space from the lights. Notice that I struck cargo space from all of the combat fighters. The lights have a heavy hit to cargo space, but I've explained why. The only situation that I can see giving cargo space to light fighters is if they take relatively heavy hits to other stats. Loss of weapon ports. Loss to thrust. Think about it, if there's no space for anything in the fighter, than to make room for cargo, then they have to remove other components. Taking out weapons and removing armor is easy. Removing a large engine and replacing it with a smaller engine is another way. So I'd be willing to concede the Rune Valk infiniboost and 8cu of cargo space if its armor is reduced to below 6000, it does not receive the thrust increase, and is reduced to 1 or 2 weapon ports. The Centurion II would likewise see an armor reduction to below 4000 to keep infiniboost and have 6-8 cargo space (11 is just too much).
But I'm not willing to make the Valk an uberfighter for every single situation. It should have an advantage in dogfight-style combat, but be at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to cargo and CtC. It would need a partner flying a ship with cargo space (a medium or a heavy) to cart off the xith.
Because the new handling of thrust and mass have suddenly made the Valk a sluggish fighter, I'm quite happy to give the Valk thrust. I'd be happy to start fighting Valks again, but not if they're the perfect uber fighter. I mean, I want kills too, and I don't want to be forced into using signficantly different tactics (like having to switch from my favorite medium fighters to a light fighter).
Even with the reduction in cargo space, I don't feel that I'm "nerfing" the valk in any way. I am giving a pretty heavy nerf to the Prometheus, which is too powerful for every situation. Even though halving the cargo would still leave it with a signficant amount of cargo space, it also loses thrust and spin torque, making it more sluggish. I think that's more of a nerf than anything I'm suggesting for the Valk. Yes, the Valks and the Centurions do lose a lot of cargo space, but I don't think that it is in any way gratuitous. I did consider those suggestions very carefully, and in the context of the rest of my suggestions, they make a lot of sense.
Each ship suddenly has a very well defined purpose. That's something that Vendetta is definitely missing. All ships (except a couple that were crappy to begin with) are basically multi-purpose ships. They all can fight, and they all can tow cargo, or at least enough that they can solo in PvP. The Rune Valk, the Centurion II, and much of the Prometheus series are at the top of this category. And look at my Atlas X. I get more kills in that than I can in the Warthog. Heck, I routinely beat the pants off of Warthogs. That's how multi-purpose all these ships are. These suggestions create defined roles for each fighter, and at least in theory, they should be pretty balanced to each other. A Centurion wouldn't necessarily be able to take on a Valkyrie with a high degree of success, but the Warthog pulls closer to the Valk and can maybe keep a 1:1 or a 2:3 win:loss ratio against an equal pilot. The Prometheus would drop back quite a bit, and hopefully other fighters would be able to get close to a 1:1 victory ratio against it.
You know, I wish that the devs would gather a group of experienced PvPers and spirit them away to a special sector smoewhere where they could test & balance the ships in PvP combat. I mean, take all of these suggestions to heart, and pit the modded ships against one another, take the advice from the old-school players who are good at PvP and then end up with somthing along CP's lines. (Except the Rune Valk, CP! Noooooooo! /me cries.)
Perhaps that is where everyone went these last 2 weeks...
Perhaps that is where everyone went these last 2 weeks...
CP, just a quick followup to my last post :) I don't feel it was a peronal attack on me, my affinity for flying a rune aside, and my vehement reply was directed at your reasons for altering the valks as you'd suggested. (1) My post was not suggesting a stamp O' death for you, just for your suggestion RE the valks; perhaps I got a touch carried away, but more to the point, I can attack a suggestion w/o attacking he who made it. You've been playing this thing far longer than I have, and there's an excellent chance you're more correct here than I; but I don't agree with you at this point.
(2) I notice you didn't really reply to my point about the Rune's solo ctc use in the current number of players context. To digress for a second, however: your suggestion of teamwork forcing by ship specialization IS well taken, but perhaps the Rune has less of a detrimental effect than you think. 8 cu is only a lot early in the week; when SCAR feels like serving up some steaming Itani entrails covered in a delicate Itani Xith sauce, we team up in light fighters, and Proms or Centuars... put a less vague way, late in the week, you want to really CtC, you team up. Rune valk is only a serious ctc tool early on, and as we all know, late in the week is where it's at for inflicting serious CtC damage on one's foe.
However, even granting that the Rune is too good for go-it-alone CtC... maybe that's not such a bad thing at this point. The player count really isn't that high, and especially for Serco, rounding up an effective 3 or 4 man CtC team at any given time is a RPIMA.
Anyway, that's it for me. Oh, yeah: I, the Serco Itani Eater, fly a valk because I hate the way the heavy prom (even as Uber as it is for a big ship) handles :P ;)
Dr. Lecter, serving up hot itani and hotter SSL' daily.
(2) I notice you didn't really reply to my point about the Rune's solo ctc use in the current number of players context. To digress for a second, however: your suggestion of teamwork forcing by ship specialization IS well taken, but perhaps the Rune has less of a detrimental effect than you think. 8 cu is only a lot early in the week; when SCAR feels like serving up some steaming Itani entrails covered in a delicate Itani Xith sauce, we team up in light fighters, and Proms or Centuars... put a less vague way, late in the week, you want to really CtC, you team up. Rune valk is only a serious ctc tool early on, and as we all know, late in the week is where it's at for inflicting serious CtC damage on one's foe.
However, even granting that the Rune is too good for go-it-alone CtC... maybe that's not such a bad thing at this point. The player count really isn't that high, and especially for Serco, rounding up an effective 3 or 4 man CtC team at any given time is a RPIMA.
Anyway, that's it for me. Oh, yeah: I, the Serco Itani Eater, fly a valk because I hate the way the heavy prom (even as Uber as it is for a big ship) handles :P ;)
Dr. Lecter, serving up hot itani and hotter SSL' daily.
Well after many hours of botting I've finally been able to get my favorite setup back—Warthog Territorial Defender + Gatling Turret + Gemini Rocket Launcher. So off I went to test it out.
I did in fact notice a considerable drop in agility and acceleration with this setup when compared to the beta version. I believe the total mass of the ship was around 7100 kg total. Anyway, let's break it down to analyze why it's the slow little piggy that it is...
Warthog TD itself has a mass of 5300 kg.
Gemini Missile Launchers are 400 kg each.
Gatling Turret is a whopping 1400 kg.
Seeing as how my original setup weighed the Warthog down too much, I decided to strip it down a little. The Gemini Missile Launcher in the S-port was more of a defensive tool than anything else. So I decided to dump it to see what effect it would have. Now with a mass of 6700 kg the Warthog felt much more like it used to in the beta. It might still be a little heavier, I'm not quite sure, but it was more acceptable in performance than with the previous loadout.
So all you Warthog lovers out there who miss the old feel of the ship, if you really like the ship you can just leave the S-port empty for now. Or you can do what I did and equip it with a Mineral Scanner. Even though it serves no purpose during combat it's at least something you can put in there without a mass penalty. Perhaps you can start a career in escorting miners and helping them locate minerals with this loadout. But personally I'd like to see the old Warthog setup back with all of its previous firepower and agility.
So I guess one solution to solving the problem of the Warthog's sluggishness would be to knock 400 kg off of its total mass. If not, maybe an increase in thrust is in order so that it can actually carry decent loadout without flying like a heavy bomber.
Another, somewhat radically different, possibility would be the removal of the S-port altogether and give it a slightly higher thrust rate or mass reduction (4700 kg). Obviously not so much that it performs like a Vulture, but just enough to make it a nimble defender. And I guess because the S-port would be removed, I think the Warthog mining ship would be better off in the form of an Atlas. It just makes more sense that way. Overall this move would help remove the similarity between the Warthog and the Atlas and make each ship more unique.
And one special note: I was using the agility of the previous Warthog TD from the beta as a reference because I felt that's when the ship was perfectly balanced. Not a lot of people complained about it. It had a mediocre acceleration rate and it wasn't good at chasing ships down. But it was good at keeping enemies at bay. As the name suggests, it was truly a territorial defender. But now it falls within the ranks of the Atlas and gets its ass handed over by them on a regular basis. For a transport/trade ship to be kicking a fighter-bomber's ass, it just doesn't seem right.
EDIT: I just thought of another possibility. Why not fix the Gatling Cannon so that it actually hits stuff? If its accuracy was greatly increased I think it would be a great addition to the Warthog. So if the Gatling Turret was truly meant for bombers, while the Gatling Cannon was meant for fighters/fighter-bombers, why not fix the Gatling Cannon? I guess the reason I'm even mentioning this is because the Gatling Cannon weighs much less and would probably go well with the Warthog without having the penalty of mass. However, something would still have to be done with the Atlas to prevent it from being a Warthog killer.
I did in fact notice a considerable drop in agility and acceleration with this setup when compared to the beta version. I believe the total mass of the ship was around 7100 kg total. Anyway, let's break it down to analyze why it's the slow little piggy that it is...
Warthog TD itself has a mass of 5300 kg.
Gemini Missile Launchers are 400 kg each.
Gatling Turret is a whopping 1400 kg.
Seeing as how my original setup weighed the Warthog down too much, I decided to strip it down a little. The Gemini Missile Launcher in the S-port was more of a defensive tool than anything else. So I decided to dump it to see what effect it would have. Now with a mass of 6700 kg the Warthog felt much more like it used to in the beta. It might still be a little heavier, I'm not quite sure, but it was more acceptable in performance than with the previous loadout.
So all you Warthog lovers out there who miss the old feel of the ship, if you really like the ship you can just leave the S-port empty for now. Or you can do what I did and equip it with a Mineral Scanner. Even though it serves no purpose during combat it's at least something you can put in there without a mass penalty. Perhaps you can start a career in escorting miners and helping them locate minerals with this loadout. But personally I'd like to see the old Warthog setup back with all of its previous firepower and agility.
So I guess one solution to solving the problem of the Warthog's sluggishness would be to knock 400 kg off of its total mass. If not, maybe an increase in thrust is in order so that it can actually carry decent loadout without flying like a heavy bomber.
Another, somewhat radically different, possibility would be the removal of the S-port altogether and give it a slightly higher thrust rate or mass reduction (4700 kg). Obviously not so much that it performs like a Vulture, but just enough to make it a nimble defender. And I guess because the S-port would be removed, I think the Warthog mining ship would be better off in the form of an Atlas. It just makes more sense that way. Overall this move would help remove the similarity between the Warthog and the Atlas and make each ship more unique.
And one special note: I was using the agility of the previous Warthog TD from the beta as a reference because I felt that's when the ship was perfectly balanced. Not a lot of people complained about it. It had a mediocre acceleration rate and it wasn't good at chasing ships down. But it was good at keeping enemies at bay. As the name suggests, it was truly a territorial defender. But now it falls within the ranks of the Atlas and gets its ass handed over by them on a regular basis. For a transport/trade ship to be kicking a fighter-bomber's ass, it just doesn't seem right.
EDIT: I just thought of another possibility. Why not fix the Gatling Cannon so that it actually hits stuff? If its accuracy was greatly increased I think it would be a great addition to the Warthog. So if the Gatling Turret was truly meant for bombers, while the Gatling Cannon was meant for fighters/fighter-bombers, why not fix the Gatling Cannon? I guess the reason I'm even mentioning this is because the Gatling Cannon weighs much less and would probably go well with the Warthog without having the penalty of mass. However, something would still have to be done with the Atlas to prevent it from being a Warthog killer.
Right now I prefer to load my Hog TD with a queengun and a gemini launcher. The Megaposi is only 500kg and has a wonderfull damage/energy ratio. Because autoaim doesn't really help a lot you won't hit much less then with a Turret anyway ;)
Queen gun, eh? Is that the positron blaster thingy? Well I still have yet to meet a hive queen, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Sounds cool though!