The Valkyrie is suppose to be unparalleled in it's speed and maneuverability, otherwise it'd hardly make a good top-tier military ship. And you want to make a ship with less than 1/3rd the license requirements as good as a Valkyrie? Why don't we raise the armor on the IBG while we're at it in order to compete with the Prom?

The ship role inequalities between Itani and Serco really don't matter either to be honest, but they are sources of frustration for those of us interested in exclusively Serco roleplay or for those pirates who don't want to be Itani affiliated to perform their jobs.

The fact is it's broadly incapable of catching your average fleeing ship and dealing the damage to destroy it. The problem isn't really the stats other than the turbo drain, there's clearly some wacked up stats among the vulture variants and it makes sense for the 64,000c SVG to have 1 less point of turbo drain than the 5,000c Vult III

You guys obviously don't get it. TRS is only comparing them to valks. The point he's trying to make is that the SVG is bested by the MKIII model and that it can't catch up to the average runner and dish out enough power to stop it.

"The Valkyrie is suppose to be unparalleled in it's speed and maneuverability"

Yeah, so the valk is super-light and has good top-speeds and turbo and normal thrust relative to its weight and to top it off a shitload of armor and 3 weapon ports.

Nobody is suggesting changing that, or giving the SVG extra armor, and extra weapon port, or making it 1000 kg lighter. This thread is *not* about *speed and maneauverability*, and this thread does not propose making the SVG a dogfighter that can match the Valk. The valk is, should be, and will remaing the best light dogfighter available in VO.

This thread suggests lowering turbo drain so the SVG can become a decent interceptor. A valk can still beat an SVG in combat and a light valk can still run away from an SVG with slightly lower turbo drain due to the Valk's higher top speed and (epscially a light valk) better thrust ratio.

The basic premise of this thread is: the valk should be the best dogfighter and interceptor. The SVG should be a good dogfighter and a good interceptor. If you agree with that, the proposed change makes sense. If you disagree, then arguing over the implementation is meaningless since you disagree with the goal.

[And, as said before, I agree that non-serco should have a decent heavy fighter ship that can carry (in terms of ports and mass/thrust) something similar to the popular dual flare+gatt loadout. If you think that Itani/UIT/Corvus/everyone should have a better heavy ship, please start a new thread on that.]

That's like comparing a Lancer Evo to a Ferrari and telling Mitsubishi to make the Evo faster.

s/faster/have less turbo drain

You're obfuscating the actual problem, and pretending it doesn't exist.

It does exist. It has nothing to do with a Valkryie. Centaur III's can easily escape from Serco Vulture Guardians and you are foolhardy to advocate an imbalance in ship roles in favour of the Itani.

If we follow draugath down the garden path of a verse where only Itani military personnel are alllowed to have Valkryies, no pirates and nobody else and they alone have the access to the valkryie - the ship that blows all others out of the water wrt interception and light combat then it will quite simply mean that everybody will become itani to get access to it and the fighting will occur between Itani and other Itani until the game becomes wholly unrecognizable.

The real solution is to give opposing sides viable solutions to solve a problem. The SVG is not a viable interceptor at the moment and the turbo drain is the reason. Correct the turbo drain and it will be viable at interception and the problem will vanish.

This does not mean you also have to make it 1000kg lighter, or give it 3 ports. But it does need to have this advantage over the mark III, and it doesn't have that at the moment. The fix is so simple and so small I can't believe the stupidity of members of Itan trying to obfuscate the issue when none of them fly the ship on a regular basis.

Actually Susan, you obfuscated it on your own. If it's the Vult III you care about and not the Valk, you should have made a bigger deal about the Vult's stats and downlplayed the mentions of the Valk. On the OP, you list two different valk stats, but no Vult III stats. So you shouldn't be surprised that people misunderstood you.

Also, I tire of all this "Pirates have to have valks" nonsense.

Listen, Tiffany, the OP is quite clear that the valk is going to remain a superior fighter by virtue of its weight.

The -1's you are seeing here are the result of a coordinated Itan extra-game political effort because they want to keep their precious running/intercepting superiority.

That's fine, We'll fly them too.

+1 to a Serco interceptor if we get a heavy ship, like an Itani Rev or Tuar.

the SVG is bested by the MKIII model
Except that it's not.

The extra thrust means the SVG gets up to speed quicker and goes further faster or can cover the same distance with heavier weapons. I fly vult3's all the time, and the SVG is a superior chaser.

"the SVG is bested by the MKIII model
Except that it's not. "

Yes it is when it comes to interception.

Both an SVG and a VultIII have the requisite acceleration and speed to keep up with a trade ship, a cargo ship or a whole bunch of combat ships. The Vult III can dish out more damage over a distance than the SVG, which is the whole point of interception.

Except it doesn't get up to speed fast enough carrying a weapon capable of doing so. The vult3 has 220N of thrust. the SVG has more than any light ship aside from the Raptor (which a lot of people would argue is not a "light" ship. It's longer than a Centaur)

What you're suggesting is a ridiculously over-powered buff for an already very powerful ship.

With 56/sec drain, you get 50 seconds of burn time on a full UC battery before it goes dead.

At 54/sec, this would be a 50% increase up to 75 seconds. Even 55/sec bumps it up to 60 seconds. This ship does not need any more stat boosts. Let's fix something that sucks like most of the Marauders and the Raptor.

75 seconds of turbo on a UC batt sounds about right for an interceptor to me! perfect!

Sure, cut the thrust down to 220N and it's not unbalanced at all.

Okay I just did a test.

Identical loadouts, UC batt dual ravens VultIII vs SVG.

The VultIII travelled 12,606km
The SVG travelled 10,506km

There is a margin of error of 2m [/lua print(radar.GetNearestObjectDistance())], the only obstacle in the sector was the wormhole (deneb b12). So, as you can see, plain as hard cold numbers, a ship that costs 7,500c or so will outperform a ship that costs almost 10 times that at chasing by 2,100km.

The SVG outperforms the vult 3 in everything else. It has better armor, weighs less, better thrust, and better torque. You can't base this change solely on turbo drain alone.

PS: Nobody flies VultIII with a UC. It's a cheap ship.

"The SVG outperforms the vult 3 in everything else."

That's why it costs 50,000 odd credits more.

P.S: Ultra charges are cheaper than fast charges.

Sure, if you've got a character left over from when farming mentor points was a thing.

If have the time to build a trident, you can do a little mentoring.

I've done tons of mentoring. It's damn near impossible to get real newbs to actually use the /mentor command.