Forums » Suggestions
My votes go to 1 (I like ShankTank's Hornet/Wraith idea) and 4 (Slight changes, perhaps -800 armor on IDF and 57/60 turbo energy on Vengeance/X-1).
+1 for number 2 and 4
Ok, then, I'll cast 1 for 1, and 2 for 2. Sorry, didn't see that little caveat!
+1 to #1 #3 and...
"targeting from a prom would be more accurate than that of a lighter vessel?"
"targeting from a prom would be more accurate than that of a lighter vessel?"
I didn't get to argue my positions in my last couple vote posts, but here it is:
1 is my current favorite because it seems to be the only solution that doesn't piss anyone off (as far as I know). Besides, what harm can two new ships bring? Even if another solution is picked, there's still no harm in this one... it would certainly diversify group combat ship selection makeup for a while. I clarified my specific ideas on this in my Itani Draugr/Serco Striker Hornet post, in the other thread (feedback on the balance of those stats would be nice, although keep it in that thread, I'd say).
2 doesn't seem like it was fully thought through. The Valk is so light to prevent tri-flares from being overpowered on it. I would be less indifferent on this if it were a well thought through system of thrust changes.
3 is cool, who wouldn't agree that the MK3 needs a more specific role? It's like the Serco's Valk Rune.
4 seems to be well on its way, and I'm cool with it... so long as the IDF armor is dropped down to Rune specs, as originally agreed upon (unless it's accompanied by an additional measure such as #1). There are two things I'm absolutely for, in VO combat balance: punishing mistakes made by fighters and wider ship variety.
Finally, 5 is reasonable, but it's not going to be fixing anything, completely, as far as group combat balance goes. It wouldn't hurt, though.
1 is my current favorite because it seems to be the only solution that doesn't piss anyone off (as far as I know). Besides, what harm can two new ships bring? Even if another solution is picked, there's still no harm in this one... it would certainly diversify group combat ship selection makeup for a while. I clarified my specific ideas on this in my Itani Draugr/Serco Striker Hornet post, in the other thread (feedback on the balance of those stats would be nice, although keep it in that thread, I'd say).
2 doesn't seem like it was fully thought through. The Valk is so light to prevent tri-flares from being overpowered on it. I would be less indifferent on this if it were a well thought through system of thrust changes.
3 is cool, who wouldn't agree that the MK3 needs a more specific role? It's like the Serco's Valk Rune.
4 seems to be well on its way, and I'm cool with it... so long as the IDF armor is dropped down to Rune specs, as originally agreed upon (unless it's accompanied by an additional measure such as #1). There are two things I'm absolutely for, in VO combat balance: punishing mistakes made by fighters and wider ship variety.
Finally, 5 is reasonable, but it's not going to be fixing anything, completely, as far as group combat balance goes. It wouldn't hurt, though.
Modified Alloh's votes. Recorded votes for tarenty, LNH, crusader and ryan.
My vote for #4 is conditional on #2 not happening.
+1 to #1
-everything else to everything else
Reason:
-everything else to everything else
Reason:
I think its safe to say this thread is dead.
Recorded.
+1 for #1 and #2
I didn't vote for #3 and #5 because in my opinion no change to the prom that doesn't complete alter its entire being will result in it being fully viable for group combat. The only change that will fix that is an improvement of the entire group combat dynamic, something that combines the essential ideas of the formation radar concept discussed in another thread, SwitchTarget, and Person's long-past TACS concept. Until something like that is available the only way to make the prom a good group fighter is a ton of team practice. Practice is good, but when the opponents have a ship that any ninny can fly with reasonable success in a group engagement with no team practice whatsoever, the balance is clearly broken (I know a lot of you don't like the idea of balance, but this isn't about making both sides equal, it's about making it so the barrier to entry for comparable efficacy isn't so widely different).
I didn't vote for #4 because the turbo drain issue is a red herring for the problems I've observed. In a moderately coordinated group attack, as long as you have the acceleration of the X-1 you don't have to boost for that long, you just have to be able to get out of the way quickly, because your opponent isn't going to be able to boost after you (unless they're also in an X-1). I appreciate that it bears on the chasing aspect in general, but my main focus in this discussion is the group aspect, and I think #2 would do better than #4 in that regard.
I didn't vote for #3 and #5 because in my opinion no change to the prom that doesn't complete alter its entire being will result in it being fully viable for group combat. The only change that will fix that is an improvement of the entire group combat dynamic, something that combines the essential ideas of the formation radar concept discussed in another thread, SwitchTarget, and Person's long-past TACS concept. Until something like that is available the only way to make the prom a good group fighter is a ton of team practice. Practice is good, but when the opponents have a ship that any ninny can fly with reasonable success in a group engagement with no team practice whatsoever, the balance is clearly broken (I know a lot of you don't like the idea of balance, but this isn't about making both sides equal, it's about making it so the barrier to entry for comparable efficacy isn't so widely different).
I didn't vote for #4 because the turbo drain issue is a red herring for the problems I've observed. In a moderately coordinated group attack, as long as you have the acceleration of the X-1 you don't have to boost for that long, you just have to be able to get out of the way quickly, because your opponent isn't going to be able to boost after you (unless they're also in an X-1). I appreciate that it bears on the chasing aspect in general, but my main focus in this discussion is the group aspect, and I think #2 would do better than #4 in that regard.
Sound points. Votes recorded.
diqrtvpe:
Your analysis has some merit, but it would also apply to the IBG. And indeed, the prom my have trouble dealing in group combat with IBG. However, if this is true, then it is magnified in the case of the valk. Option number 4 is an attempt to fix the most extreme problem first. If the valk is more on par with the IBG, then we can start looking at the prom against a more balanced background. In our current situation, if we fix the prom as compared to the valk, then the IBG may no longer be a viable option for the itani. And then the SGV may also be made obsolete.
I am not saying that the valk is the only thing that needs to be fixed. I am saying that fixing anything else first may create a domino effect whereby you have to keep fixing things until the valk is the only thing not fixed, or, from an alternative perspective, the valk gets fixed indirectly by fixing every other ship in relation to the valk.
Fixing the valk may not at all end the subject of prom balance, and in fact, may only be a starting point. But it is the natural starting point.
Your analysis has some merit, but it would also apply to the IBG. And indeed, the prom my have trouble dealing in group combat with IBG. However, if this is true, then it is magnified in the case of the valk. Option number 4 is an attempt to fix the most extreme problem first. If the valk is more on par with the IBG, then we can start looking at the prom against a more balanced background. In our current situation, if we fix the prom as compared to the valk, then the IBG may no longer be a viable option for the itani. And then the SGV may also be made obsolete.
I am not saying that the valk is the only thing that needs to be fixed. I am saying that fixing anything else first may create a domino effect whereby you have to keep fixing things until the valk is the only thing not fixed, or, from an alternative perspective, the valk gets fixed indirectly by fixing every other ship in relation to the valk.
Fixing the valk may not at all end the subject of prom balance, and in fact, may only be a starting point. But it is the natural starting point.
Roda: Replying on the discussion thread to keep this to mostly just votes.
So it seems that this has stalled out. But the results seem fairly even between 1-4. I think this information will be useful in the near future.
I'm voting for number one I don't know if you counted my vote from the other thread ghosty
I am aggravated with the devs.
Ghost has done an exemplary job of conducting this thread. He has polled for suggestions, identified the most widely supported suggestions, collected votes of support for those suggestions, and documented his efforts.
I know of few if any player driven and managed efforts of equal par.
And yet... the only result we get from the devs is one that is contrary to the results of this thread.
At no point where the devs discouraged from contributing to this thread. If the devs had concerns with or about any of the suggestions they where welcome to voice them.
What we get instead is that a dev preempted the process by implementing a change before this thread was allowed to reach conclusion, and then ignoring the conclusions of this thread.
For a dev to tell us we are wrong is feedback. To simply ignore the results of such a major player participated endeavor is insulting.
Ghost has done an exemplary job of conducting this thread. He has polled for suggestions, identified the most widely supported suggestions, collected votes of support for those suggestions, and documented his efforts.
I know of few if any player driven and managed efforts of equal par.
And yet... the only result we get from the devs is one that is contrary to the results of this thread.
At no point where the devs discouraged from contributing to this thread. If the devs had concerns with or about any of the suggestions they where welcome to voice them.
What we get instead is that a dev preempted the process by implementing a change before this thread was allowed to reach conclusion, and then ignoring the conclusions of this thread.
For a dev to tell us we are wrong is feedback. To simply ignore the results of such a major player participated endeavor is insulting.
Roda, relax... I'm certain the Developers were simply waiting for your permission to give some input on the suggestions we are making/voting for which directly affect the game they created.
I vote Roda shuts the hell up.
I vote Roda shuts the hell up.
Good god Roda, I would respond more thoroughly to this, but I don't have time right now.
As I explained at the time, I was trying to revitalize the thread by making a change that I thought was well regarded (and I clearly was not the only one who thought that), although I didn't think the responses on the thread were fully counted at that time. After you pitched a fit, I said I could change it back if need be, that the intent was only to keep discussion going, and I thought it had been a good tweak.. <shrug>.
But fundamentally, this is not a democracy. In the past 8 years of the Suggestions forum, I have only occasionally implemented any user changes exactly the way they were specified on here. Everything is filtered through what I want, what my plans are for the future, what I think is best for the game, and what I can do on short notice to make it clear that I care and am listening.
And sometimes, especially of late, I don't have a lot of spare TIME to take part in involved, lengthy forum discussions. I worked like 18 f***ing hours yesterday. I'm trying to make the company enough money to be able to actually improve the goddamn game, and August has been a particularly intense month for that goal.
I haven't ignored anything, but I probably still won't be able to check into this thread, or most of the others, for at least a solid week (although I do want to). So you can kiss my ass. And be insulted all you want.
As I explained at the time, I was trying to revitalize the thread by making a change that I thought was well regarded (and I clearly was not the only one who thought that), although I didn't think the responses on the thread were fully counted at that time. After you pitched a fit, I said I could change it back if need be, that the intent was only to keep discussion going, and I thought it had been a good tweak.. <shrug>.
But fundamentally, this is not a democracy. In the past 8 years of the Suggestions forum, I have only occasionally implemented any user changes exactly the way they were specified on here. Everything is filtered through what I want, what my plans are for the future, what I think is best for the game, and what I can do on short notice to make it clear that I care and am listening.
And sometimes, especially of late, I don't have a lot of spare TIME to take part in involved, lengthy forum discussions. I worked like 18 f***ing hours yesterday. I'm trying to make the company enough money to be able to actually improve the goddamn game, and August has been a particularly intense month for that goal.
I haven't ignored anything, but I probably still won't be able to check into this thread, or most of the others, for at least a solid week (although I do want to). So you can kiss my ass. And be insulted all you want.
Just my two cents, the decreased drain of the SVG is nice, however, theres always been something slightly off with the ship. Alot of people I talk to complain of the same thing, it never quite flies with the agility its stats make it seem it should have. The strafing is quite sluggish (it SHOULD be able to strafe more quickly then the corvult, but it doesnt). Im not sure what makes it like this, the loadout (heavy vs light) doesnt seem to make an awful lot of difference. It frankly flies a bit worse then the biocom vult, which makes little sense considering it should be far better (on paper anyway)