Forums » Suggestions
You say you want an L port. Therefore, you want the gun layout of a Warthog, since 2S1L would be equal to the Prom, which is much heavier than the Hornet.
Once again, you haven't read my posts. Check my first post and you'll see that the proposal includes a 2 L-port and 2 S-port Prometheus. 2 L-ports and 1 S-port is another possibility that was mentioned. Point is, the proposal focuses on changing the weapon ports of several ships, not just one. Clearly it would be bad to upgrade the Hornet and ignore the Prometheus.
I hadn't counted on making this into a Hornet only discussion. Unfortunately it ended up that way because some people brought it up. So guys, if you want to discuss the other ships also, feel free to. There doesn't seem to be a lot of debate about whether changing the Prometheus or Marauder would be a good thing or not. But I'd certainly like to see those ships get balanced also.
I hadn't counted on making this into a Hornet only discussion. Unfortunately it ended up that way because some people brought it up. So guys, if you want to discuss the other ships also, feel free to. There doesn't seem to be a lot of debate about whether changing the Prometheus or Marauder would be a good thing or not. But I'd certainly like to see those ships get balanced also.
UncleDave, that may not be a bad idea. Or maybe just 3 L-ports and no S-ports. We don't have a ship that's like that yet. But anyway there are many possibilities that'll work. Point is, something can be done to the Prometheus to make it a little better than it is now. I think the key here is to look at the weapon ports rather than slapping more hull points on to it.
Renegade... heh... I dunno where to start here. Hmmm, okay.
>PS: arolte, if the hornet gets an extra 2k hull, and you keep the rest,
>im sure it would be sufficient. Dont forget, the hornet is a supportship
>and very versatile because of the 4 small slots.
The problem isn't hull points. There's plenty of that on the Hornet. Increasing the hull points won't help it out one bit. It'll just delay your death.
The problem right now is being able to point your Hornet towards a target and trying to shoot it down. The agility right now I have no major problem with. I've whined enough about that already. However, if the current agility is going to be kept, there needs to be better auto-aim weapons on it. The L-port has those weapons.
For example what I had in mind for my configuration would be an advanced gatling turret and two gemini launchers. The Warthog I'm using now has an advanced gatling turret and one gemini launcher. It's just one step above, but with the loss of agility. It's a perfect step from medium fighter to heavy fighter right there.
>People will love the ability to put 2 rockets on it and 2 gemini, or 2
>gausses and 2 gemini or 2 tachs a gauss and a gemini, or 4 sunflares
>or 4 gemini or ... .
Yeah but what other weapons make it effective besides missiles? Nothing. You're forcing people to use rockets and missiles, which I personally don't like. Once you run out of ammo you're screwed. Two tachyons or gauss cannons certainly aren't going to save your ass against a Valk/Vulture swooping in with the gauss cannon. You're dead.
An advanced gatling turret would ward off those types of enemies without any problem. This is why the Warthog is used as an anti-Valk ship. This is why I continue to use the Warthog almost exclusively. The Hornet needs to have that same kind of defense due to its lower agility.
>Besides, ever tried shooting down defence ships in a hornet? I have to
>say, the hornet rocks, 4 rockettubes, and 1 dead vulture :D
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. But the ship is defenseless against fighters. Fighters can fight fighters. Bombers can ward off fighters with gatlings and swarms. What does the Hornet have? Nothing. You either ram 'em with rockets, or you're dead in a gauss vs gauss battle. And of course the ship with the higher agility (the fighter) will win that one.
I can understand you wanting a 4 S-port ship. But I don't think the Hornet should be it. If you look at Group 2 on the list of my first post, you'll see that a 4 S-port ship would come right after the Valkyrie. Not below, in Group 3, where the Warthog and Hornet is. Maybe it can be a new ship. I don't know.
Renegade... heh... I dunno where to start here. Hmmm, okay.
>PS: arolte, if the hornet gets an extra 2k hull, and you keep the rest,
>im sure it would be sufficient. Dont forget, the hornet is a supportship
>and very versatile because of the 4 small slots.
The problem isn't hull points. There's plenty of that on the Hornet. Increasing the hull points won't help it out one bit. It'll just delay your death.
The problem right now is being able to point your Hornet towards a target and trying to shoot it down. The agility right now I have no major problem with. I've whined enough about that already. However, if the current agility is going to be kept, there needs to be better auto-aim weapons on it. The L-port has those weapons.
For example what I had in mind for my configuration would be an advanced gatling turret and two gemini launchers. The Warthog I'm using now has an advanced gatling turret and one gemini launcher. It's just one step above, but with the loss of agility. It's a perfect step from medium fighter to heavy fighter right there.
>People will love the ability to put 2 rockets on it and 2 gemini, or 2
>gausses and 2 gemini or 2 tachs a gauss and a gemini, or 4 sunflares
>or 4 gemini or ... .
Yeah but what other weapons make it effective besides missiles? Nothing. You're forcing people to use rockets and missiles, which I personally don't like. Once you run out of ammo you're screwed. Two tachyons or gauss cannons certainly aren't going to save your ass against a Valk/Vulture swooping in with the gauss cannon. You're dead.
An advanced gatling turret would ward off those types of enemies without any problem. This is why the Warthog is used as an anti-Valk ship. This is why I continue to use the Warthog almost exclusively. The Hornet needs to have that same kind of defense due to its lower agility.
>Besides, ever tried shooting down defence ships in a hornet? I have to
>say, the hornet rocks, 4 rockettubes, and 1 dead vulture :D
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. But the ship is defenseless against fighters. Fighters can fight fighters. Bombers can ward off fighters with gatlings and swarms. What does the Hornet have? Nothing. You either ram 'em with rockets, or you're dead in a gauss vs gauss battle. And of course the ship with the higher agility (the fighter) will win that one.
I can understand you wanting a 4 S-port ship. But I don't think the Hornet should be it. If you look at Group 2 on the list of my first post, you'll see that a 4 S-port ship would come right after the Valkyrie. Not below, in Group 3, where the Warthog and Hornet is. Maybe it can be a new ship. I don't know.
I don't buy it.
The entire basis of the essay is bunk, nor are the conclusions in line with what the author is supposedly advocating. I almost hate to respond to this, because when the premise is wrong, it tends to make every line of the arguement objectionable and as such I find myself writing enormously long posts. I'll try to confine myself to the most obvious points.
Here's the Thesis: "Vendetta right now doesn't offer much of a smooth transition between ship classes. And that's what I think is key in balancing the ships out."
Ok, fine. That might be one successful strategy. It might not be the only one, and it might only work if you don't just pay it lip service but actually rigorously implement it, but it is one way to approach the problem.
"Group 2:
Centurion - 1 S-port
Vulture - 2 S-ports
Valkyrie - 3 S-ports
Group 2 is the light fighter class. You see the progression from 1 S-port to 3 S-ports. It can't get any more organized than this. "
Wait a minute. Hold on a second. Is this really a progression, and if so what kind is it? I mean if this really was a progression, might you not expect decreasing agility or decreasing hull points as the ship's firepower rose? If we are going to look at this as progressions, isn't the more serious problem in this class? How can we move along?
And the observant out there might have noted two things which are highly relevent. Namely, that _there is more than one type of progression possible_ - for example a listing of increasing hull points, or a listing of increasing cargo, or a listing of increasing agility. You can't just just list these ships on one axis, because they don't have just one axis. And also, there _isn't_ a progression of small weapons and large weapons, because these are not fundamentally disimilar things. In fact, for much of 3.2.x, you couldn't even argue very successfully that large weapons were _better_ than small weapons, that is to say different in quality, much less different in kind. Both types of weapons basically contribute to a ship's _firepower_, which is the real axis in question in Arolte's port.
"Group 3:
Warthog - 1 L-port, 1 S-port
Hornet - 4 S-ports
Atlas - 1 L-port, 1 S-port
Wraith - 1 L-port, 2 S-ports
Group 3 is the heavy fighter and gunship class. Whoah! What's going on here? We went from having 1 L-port + 1 S-port to having 4 S-ports?"
What _is_ going on here? Well first, why is the Atlas arbitrarily thrown in this group? Why isn't the Hornet included in that fighter progression above (where it would according to the thesis naturally fit)? What is going on here is that these ships differ from each other in a lot of ways other than weapons load out. Also, if we consider _firepower_ progression, then mix and matching the L and S weapons is perfectly fine. If a L weapon is worth ~1.5 (or ~2 or ~1.394 or whatever) small weapons, then we can 'jump' from a ship with 2L weapons to one with 4S weapons without a real problem.
But the real underlying problem with these arbitrary groupings is its not clear that they were designed to be a progression at all.
And what about the fix?
"Group 3 (Revised):
Warthog - 1 L-port, 1 S-port
Hornet - 1 L-port, 2 S-ports
Atlas - 1 L-port, 1 S-port
Wraith - 1 L-port, 2 S-ports"
Where is the smooth progression? Shouldn't a smooth progression be something like: Atlas - 2L, 1S; Wraith - 2L, 2S? Why is the Atlas less gunned than the Hornet if this is all about smooth progression? Equally importantly, the Hornet and the Wraith now have almost identical stats. Yet again we have the community trying to impose balance essentially by making all the ships more and more alike. Where does this trend stop? With three ships? With one? Back to 3.1.x!
Here's another 'fix':
"Group 4:
Marauder: 1 L-port 2, 2 S-ports
Prometheus: 2 L-ports, 2 S-ports
Centaur: 2 L-ports, 2 S-ports
Ragnarok: 2 L-prorts, 3 S-ports"
Is this really a smooth progression? If it is why the flat shelf between the Prometheus and the Centaur? Wouldn't a smooth transition be more like 2L, 1S port for the Prom?
"As you can see with this revision there won't be anymore unpredictable bumps between ship classes."
Demonstratably and obviously false, and a ludicrously unreflective statement to the point of blindness.
"You again additional weapon ports as you go up in the tier system, but at the expense of some other characteristic such as agility or armor."
Also false even in the 'fix'.
"Rather than debating about agility and armor repeatedly, it might be wiser to focus on giving these ships the right weapons to begin with."
You can't take one or the other. The three interelate. You might as well say, "I think all this talk about calculating volume is focusing to much on the x and z axes. We need to focus on the y axis."
"Giving a heavy ship S-ports only or a light ship L-ports only doesn't do a lot of good for balance at all!"
Doesn't necessarily hurt it either. Might not even have much to do with balance. All large weapons are not necessarily easier to aim (the screamer for instance) and not all small weapons are necessarily harder to aim (the gauss for instance). THOSE ARE NOT THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF LARGE AND SMALL WEAPONS. (In fact, as of yet, we couldn't say what the defining characteristic of large or small weapons is supposed to be because when 3.2.x first came out most large weapons were noticably worse than thier small counterparts. There doesn't seem to be anything like a design document on the weapons at all, which may indicate that 3.3.x might come along and all the weapons we have might be replaced the way that the 3.1.x weapons were. We don't know.) The Advanced Gatling is just one example of a large weapon. The Sunflare is just one example of a small weapon. Imbalance in the weapons is not justification for altering the characteristics of the ships.
The entire basis of the essay is bunk, nor are the conclusions in line with what the author is supposedly advocating. I almost hate to respond to this, because when the premise is wrong, it tends to make every line of the arguement objectionable and as such I find myself writing enormously long posts. I'll try to confine myself to the most obvious points.
Here's the Thesis: "Vendetta right now doesn't offer much of a smooth transition between ship classes. And that's what I think is key in balancing the ships out."
Ok, fine. That might be one successful strategy. It might not be the only one, and it might only work if you don't just pay it lip service but actually rigorously implement it, but it is one way to approach the problem.
"Group 2:
Centurion - 1 S-port
Vulture - 2 S-ports
Valkyrie - 3 S-ports
Group 2 is the light fighter class. You see the progression from 1 S-port to 3 S-ports. It can't get any more organized than this. "
Wait a minute. Hold on a second. Is this really a progression, and if so what kind is it? I mean if this really was a progression, might you not expect decreasing agility or decreasing hull points as the ship's firepower rose? If we are going to look at this as progressions, isn't the more serious problem in this class? How can we move along?
And the observant out there might have noted two things which are highly relevent. Namely, that _there is more than one type of progression possible_ - for example a listing of increasing hull points, or a listing of increasing cargo, or a listing of increasing agility. You can't just just list these ships on one axis, because they don't have just one axis. And also, there _isn't_ a progression of small weapons and large weapons, because these are not fundamentally disimilar things. In fact, for much of 3.2.x, you couldn't even argue very successfully that large weapons were _better_ than small weapons, that is to say different in quality, much less different in kind. Both types of weapons basically contribute to a ship's _firepower_, which is the real axis in question in Arolte's port.
"Group 3:
Warthog - 1 L-port, 1 S-port
Hornet - 4 S-ports
Atlas - 1 L-port, 1 S-port
Wraith - 1 L-port, 2 S-ports
Group 3 is the heavy fighter and gunship class. Whoah! What's going on here? We went from having 1 L-port + 1 S-port to having 4 S-ports?"
What _is_ going on here? Well first, why is the Atlas arbitrarily thrown in this group? Why isn't the Hornet included in that fighter progression above (where it would according to the thesis naturally fit)? What is going on here is that these ships differ from each other in a lot of ways other than weapons load out. Also, if we consider _firepower_ progression, then mix and matching the L and S weapons is perfectly fine. If a L weapon is worth ~1.5 (or ~2 or ~1.394 or whatever) small weapons, then we can 'jump' from a ship with 2L weapons to one with 4S weapons without a real problem.
But the real underlying problem with these arbitrary groupings is its not clear that they were designed to be a progression at all.
And what about the fix?
"Group 3 (Revised):
Warthog - 1 L-port, 1 S-port
Hornet - 1 L-port, 2 S-ports
Atlas - 1 L-port, 1 S-port
Wraith - 1 L-port, 2 S-ports"
Where is the smooth progression? Shouldn't a smooth progression be something like: Atlas - 2L, 1S; Wraith - 2L, 2S? Why is the Atlas less gunned than the Hornet if this is all about smooth progression? Equally importantly, the Hornet and the Wraith now have almost identical stats. Yet again we have the community trying to impose balance essentially by making all the ships more and more alike. Where does this trend stop? With three ships? With one? Back to 3.1.x!
Here's another 'fix':
"Group 4:
Marauder: 1 L-port 2, 2 S-ports
Prometheus: 2 L-ports, 2 S-ports
Centaur: 2 L-ports, 2 S-ports
Ragnarok: 2 L-prorts, 3 S-ports"
Is this really a smooth progression? If it is why the flat shelf between the Prometheus and the Centaur? Wouldn't a smooth transition be more like 2L, 1S port for the Prom?
"As you can see with this revision there won't be anymore unpredictable bumps between ship classes."
Demonstratably and obviously false, and a ludicrously unreflective statement to the point of blindness.
"You again additional weapon ports as you go up in the tier system, but at the expense of some other characteristic such as agility or armor."
Also false even in the 'fix'.
"Rather than debating about agility and armor repeatedly, it might be wiser to focus on giving these ships the right weapons to begin with."
You can't take one or the other. The three interelate. You might as well say, "I think all this talk about calculating volume is focusing to much on the x and z axes. We need to focus on the y axis."
"Giving a heavy ship S-ports only or a light ship L-ports only doesn't do a lot of good for balance at all!"
Doesn't necessarily hurt it either. Might not even have much to do with balance. All large weapons are not necessarily easier to aim (the screamer for instance) and not all small weapons are necessarily harder to aim (the gauss for instance). THOSE ARE NOT THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF LARGE AND SMALL WEAPONS. (In fact, as of yet, we couldn't say what the defining characteristic of large or small weapons is supposed to be because when 3.2.x first came out most large weapons were noticably worse than thier small counterparts. There doesn't seem to be anything like a design document on the weapons at all, which may indicate that 3.3.x might come along and all the weapons we have might be replaced the way that the 3.1.x weapons were. We don't know.) The Advanced Gatling is just one example of a large weapon. The Sunflare is just one example of a small weapon. Imbalance in the weapons is not justification for altering the characteristics of the ships.
/me reads celebrims post,
notices that his head feels bloated and drops down looking quizzically :D
Could you please refrain from using these protruding pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo, it will increase the readability of your text with a factor 10.
for the rest "the things that I understand that is :D", it looked like what I wanted to say :D
Arolte, isnt the idea of delaying your death the same as increasing the chance of finshing the person off? And as celebrim so nicely put and I before stated, you are making the hornet into a mini wraith.
Just keep it as it is, it is allright now.
Besides, I always thought of the hornet of a supportship, between a fighter and a bomber, if it hits then it hurts, if it doesnt hit, then feel death closing in.
Besides with the items that I said before and the difference in agility, it is great to take out a prom or a rag or a wraith even with only 1- 2 shots. "imagine a rail on it :D"
cheers
notices that his head feels bloated and drops down looking quizzically :D
Could you please refrain from using these protruding pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo, it will increase the readability of your text with a factor 10.
for the rest "the things that I understand that is :D", it looked like what I wanted to say :D
Arolte, isnt the idea of delaying your death the same as increasing the chance of finshing the person off? And as celebrim so nicely put and I before stated, you are making the hornet into a mini wraith.
Just keep it as it is, it is allright now.
Besides, I always thought of the hornet of a supportship, between a fighter and a bomber, if it hits then it hurts, if it doesnt hit, then feel death closing in.
Besides with the items that I said before and the difference in agility, it is great to take out a prom or a rag or a wraith even with only 1- 2 shots. "imagine a rail on it :D"
cheers
"Could you please refrain from using these protruding pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo, it will increase the readability of your text with a factor 10."
Err...what the h311 are you talking about? Also, it would increase the readability of your text if you would use the proper prepositions in the phrase 'by a factor of 10'. Also, it wouldn't hurt to avoid joining clauses with a comma. At the very least, please put a semi-colon after 'jumbo'.
Thanks. :)
PS: I'm not going to start insulting anyone's intelligence by writing down to the audience as if I considered you a bunch of morons, so save your time and don't ask.
Err...what the h311 are you talking about? Also, it would increase the readability of your text if you would use the proper prepositions in the phrase 'by a factor of 10'. Also, it wouldn't hurt to avoid joining clauses with a comma. At the very least, please put a semi-colon after 'jumbo'.
Thanks. :)
PS: I'm not going to start insulting anyone's intelligence by writing down to the audience as if I considered you a bunch of morons, so save your time and don't ask.
Celebrim, you're forgetting that English isn't everyone's first language...
Get back on topic please.
"The tachyon and graviton blasters are similar, but have different properties."
-That's debatable.
"grav : increased damage "+150- 200", same speed,
tach: more speed keep damage "+20".
gauss: keep damage decrease speed with 20."
-Sounds good to me.
"I dont like this, you are making from a hornet a ship on par with a centaur. You are even making it better then a wraith"
-Like I said, my second suggestion would drastically change the character of the ship. It wouldn't be better than the wraith, it would just have more firepower. But its hull would be weaker and it would be slower. So it would be more like a gunboat (like the Rag) than a strike fighter (like the hog or maybe the wraith.) I thought the problem with the hornet was that it was too much like a bomber to be an effective fighter. But not quite powerful enough to be a useful bomber.
"for instance for the sercos:
increase hull with 2 k
for itanis:
decrease energy drain with 3/4 th, 1/2th is good to though
for neutrals:
extra battery to power guns."
-Hmm, not too sure about this. Would the itani energy drain decrease apply to both weapons drain and turbo drain? Because that would give them the neutral's advantage and more. I think giving the neutrals bigger or faster charging batteries (more energy), the Itani faster engines (High torque), and the sercos more powerful weapons would be better. But, naturally, it will have to be playtested.
-That's debatable.
"grav : increased damage "+150- 200", same speed,
tach: more speed keep damage "+20".
gauss: keep damage decrease speed with 20."
-Sounds good to me.
"I dont like this, you are making from a hornet a ship on par with a centaur. You are even making it better then a wraith"
-Like I said, my second suggestion would drastically change the character of the ship. It wouldn't be better than the wraith, it would just have more firepower. But its hull would be weaker and it would be slower. So it would be more like a gunboat (like the Rag) than a strike fighter (like the hog or maybe the wraith.) I thought the problem with the hornet was that it was too much like a bomber to be an effective fighter. But not quite powerful enough to be a useful bomber.
"for instance for the sercos:
increase hull with 2 k
for itanis:
decrease energy drain with 3/4 th, 1/2th is good to though
for neutrals:
extra battery to power guns."
-Hmm, not too sure about this. Would the itani energy drain decrease apply to both weapons drain and turbo drain? Because that would give them the neutral's advantage and more. I think giving the neutrals bigger or faster charging batteries (more energy), the Itani faster engines (High torque), and the sercos more powerful weapons would be better. But, naturally, it will have to be playtested.
Woohoo, I like challenges! Okay, let's break it down...
>What _is_ going on here? Well first, why is the Atlas arbitrarily thrown
>in this group? Why isn't the Hornet included in that fighter progression
>above (where it would according to the thesis naturally fit)?
People have said time and time again that the Hornet is not a fighter. And now they're backpeddling? Okay hang on a second here. If it's truly a fighter, its agility should be bumped up to the Warthog level and it shouldn't wobble so damn much when you're aiming.
Although I labeled it as a heavy fighter/low agility fighter, its current form seems to take the role of a strike fighter. A combination between a fighter and a bomber. That's why I felt the need to stick it in with the Atlas. Because its agility is just one step above the Atlas and the Wraith.
And unfortunately the 4 S-port combo for this ship just isn't working. If it's meant to be the current agility, it needs to have the L-port in there for defensive purposes. If it's meant to be a fighter, its agility needs to be bumped up (sorry, I had to bring this up) so that it feels like one. It's either one or the other. Right now it's neither and it's suffering for it.
>But the real underlying problem with these arbitrary groupings is its not
>clear that they were designed to be a progression at all.
These are not arbitrary groupings. The ships were grouped according to the availability of weapon ports. You'll notice a distinct pattern of the weapon ports for the ships I grouped... and moved a couple around by changing their weapon ports to better suit their role.
>Where is the smooth progression? Shouldn't a smooth progression be
>something like: Atlas - 2L, 1S; Wraith - 2L, 2S? Why is the Atlas less
>gunned than the Hornet if this is all about smooth progression? Equally
>importantly, the Hornet and the Wraith now have almost identical stats.
>Yet again we have the community trying to impose balance essentially
>by making all the ships more and more alike. Where does this trend
>stop? With three ships? With one? Back to 3.1.x!
Take a look at that group again. You'll notice it repeats. It's a pattern. And by your reasoning the Atlas shouldn't belong either, because it has the SAME exact ports as the Warthog. Why do you think the devs made it this way? Because one is a transport vessel and the other is a heavy fighter. The difference is in the cargo and agility. The same would apply to the Hornet versus the Wraith.
>Doesn't necessarily hurt it either. Might not even have much to do with
> balance. All large weapons are not necessarily easier to aim (the
> screamer for instance) and not all small weapons are necessarily
> harder to aim (the gauss for instance). THOSE ARE NOT THE
I'll say it before and I'll say it again. The gauss in the current form does not belong in the S-port category. Its autoaim is ridiculously high and it shoots out plasm bolts that are about a third of the size of most S-port ships! Its speed is also exactly the same as tachyons and gravitons. Wtf? This is the very same reason why it's abused by Valk and Vulture pilots.
When you take away the gauss cannon, what's left in terms of high autoaim energy weapons? Nothing. The advanced gatling turret, as trivial as it may seem, is the single protector of the heavy class ship. It continues to effectively keep away the fighter class from essentially raping low agility ships. When your reticule is wobbling uncontrollably all over the place, that gatling turret is your best friend.
And others may argue that I need to take up rockets or STFU. But then where does the customization of weapons go? Are we forced to drive around in missile ships that can easily be outmaneuvered by fighters? Once all that ammo is gone, what happens to these ships? They're flying targets yet again.
>What _is_ going on here? Well first, why is the Atlas arbitrarily thrown
>in this group? Why isn't the Hornet included in that fighter progression
>above (where it would according to the thesis naturally fit)?
People have said time and time again that the Hornet is not a fighter. And now they're backpeddling? Okay hang on a second here. If it's truly a fighter, its agility should be bumped up to the Warthog level and it shouldn't wobble so damn much when you're aiming.
Although I labeled it as a heavy fighter/low agility fighter, its current form seems to take the role of a strike fighter. A combination between a fighter and a bomber. That's why I felt the need to stick it in with the Atlas. Because its agility is just one step above the Atlas and the Wraith.
And unfortunately the 4 S-port combo for this ship just isn't working. If it's meant to be the current agility, it needs to have the L-port in there for defensive purposes. If it's meant to be a fighter, its agility needs to be bumped up (sorry, I had to bring this up) so that it feels like one. It's either one or the other. Right now it's neither and it's suffering for it.
>But the real underlying problem with these arbitrary groupings is its not
>clear that they were designed to be a progression at all.
These are not arbitrary groupings. The ships were grouped according to the availability of weapon ports. You'll notice a distinct pattern of the weapon ports for the ships I grouped... and moved a couple around by changing their weapon ports to better suit their role.
>Where is the smooth progression? Shouldn't a smooth progression be
>something like: Atlas - 2L, 1S; Wraith - 2L, 2S? Why is the Atlas less
>gunned than the Hornet if this is all about smooth progression? Equally
>importantly, the Hornet and the Wraith now have almost identical stats.
>Yet again we have the community trying to impose balance essentially
>by making all the ships more and more alike. Where does this trend
>stop? With three ships? With one? Back to 3.1.x!
Take a look at that group again. You'll notice it repeats. It's a pattern. And by your reasoning the Atlas shouldn't belong either, because it has the SAME exact ports as the Warthog. Why do you think the devs made it this way? Because one is a transport vessel and the other is a heavy fighter. The difference is in the cargo and agility. The same would apply to the Hornet versus the Wraith.
>Doesn't necessarily hurt it either. Might not even have much to do with
> balance. All large weapons are not necessarily easier to aim (the
> screamer for instance) and not all small weapons are necessarily
> harder to aim (the gauss for instance). THOSE ARE NOT THE
I'll say it before and I'll say it again. The gauss in the current form does not belong in the S-port category. Its autoaim is ridiculously high and it shoots out plasm bolts that are about a third of the size of most S-port ships! Its speed is also exactly the same as tachyons and gravitons. Wtf? This is the very same reason why it's abused by Valk and Vulture pilots.
When you take away the gauss cannon, what's left in terms of high autoaim energy weapons? Nothing. The advanced gatling turret, as trivial as it may seem, is the single protector of the heavy class ship. It continues to effectively keep away the fighter class from essentially raping low agility ships. When your reticule is wobbling uncontrollably all over the place, that gatling turret is your best friend.
And others may argue that I need to take up rockets or STFU. But then where does the customization of weapons go? Are we forced to drive around in missile ships that can easily be outmaneuvered by fighters? Once all that ammo is gone, what happens to these ships? They're flying targets yet again.
Back to basics:
The hornet is an extremely difficult ship to balance. It's a heavy ship trying to act like a light fighter, and failing miserably in both respects. The latter because it simply isn't fast enough, and the former because its lack of L ports makes it difficult to defend itself.
Celebrim brings up a good point about all the ship's agilities moving closer together, but honestly, if we wish to establish the Hornet as a heavy fighter, I can see no other way. It is exceedingly difficult to aim Small port weapons with a ship that wobbles as much as the Hornet.
If, we instead choose to deemphasise its role as a fighter and make it more of a bomber, then it's agility needs to drop and it needs to replace some S ports with L ports. Perhaps as 2S+2L or a 3L, or a 1S 2L config would work well enough to make it viable as a heavy assault craft (very low on armor BTW). We don't have any ships in the game that are predominantly composed of L ports. It may make for a nice change. Unfortunatly, it would also completely change the character if tge ship.
The hornet is an extremely difficult ship to balance. It's a heavy ship trying to act like a light fighter, and failing miserably in both respects. The latter because it simply isn't fast enough, and the former because its lack of L ports makes it difficult to defend itself.
Celebrim brings up a good point about all the ship's agilities moving closer together, but honestly, if we wish to establish the Hornet as a heavy fighter, I can see no other way. It is exceedingly difficult to aim Small port weapons with a ship that wobbles as much as the Hornet.
If, we instead choose to deemphasise its role as a fighter and make it more of a bomber, then it's agility needs to drop and it needs to replace some S ports with L ports. Perhaps as 2S+2L or a 3L, or a 1S 2L config would work well enough to make it viable as a heavy assault craft (very low on armor BTW). We don't have any ships in the game that are predominantly composed of L ports. It may make for a nice change. Unfortunatly, it would also completely change the character if tge ship.
Uhh, Arolte... The Adv. Gatt isn't the only large auto aim, in fact the Plasma Cannon is exactly what you want the gauss cannon to be (but let me guess, you don't ever use the PC because you want a AG and thus take away custumiztion options from yourself)
The hornet's loadout is what makes it what it is, you change it and then what will I mount 2x Rails and 2x Gems on? Don't say you can't aim in it, I can nail ppl with those Rails (or perhaps I rail them with those rails). In addition gauss cannons are perfect for it, sure you can't mount 4 and expect to have any energy but if you mix ammo and nrg weapons, as is required for survival in so many games, it is a very effective craft. j00 just need to get used to it.
As for weither to change hull or armor, allow me to quote another post by me on it
"For the net:
I don't think a hull boost would be that big a deal so (only do one of these):
boost hull 1k (repeat untill suficient)
slightly lower mass
better balance mass
inherent energy generation
fire energy weapons for 3/4 price"
What do you think of that?
The hornet's loadout is what makes it what it is, you change it and then what will I mount 2x Rails and 2x Gems on? Don't say you can't aim in it, I can nail ppl with those Rails (or perhaps I rail them with those rails). In addition gauss cannons are perfect for it, sure you can't mount 4 and expect to have any energy but if you mix ammo and nrg weapons, as is required for survival in so many games, it is a very effective craft. j00 just need to get used to it.
As for weither to change hull or armor, allow me to quote another post by me on it
"For the net:
I don't think a hull boost would be that big a deal so (only do one of these):
boost hull 1k (repeat untill suficient)
slightly lower mass
better balance mass
inherent energy generation
fire energy weapons for 3/4 price"
What do you think of that?
>Uhh, Arolte... The Adv. Gatt isn't the only large auto aim, in fact the Plasma
>Cannon is exactly what you want the gauss cannon to be (but let me guess, you
>don't ever use the PC because you want a AG and thus take away custumiztion
>options from yourself)
I personally believe the gauss cannon belongs in the L-port. It's a good weapon, but when you slap one on to a Valkyrie or Vulture, you got yourself an instant uber ship that exceeds all others. Having a high agility ship with high auto-aim weapons is seriously problematic. So what my suggestion would offer for the L-port would be three auto-aim weapons of choice: advanced gatling, plasma cannon, and gauss cannon. Auto-aim weapons belong in the L-port, because heavy ships need some way of compensating for the slower turn rate.
>The hornet's loadout is what makes it what it is, you change it and then what will
>I mount 2x Rails and 2x Gems on? Don't say you can't aim in it, I can nail ppl
>with those Rails (or perhaps I rail them with those rails). In addition gauss
>cannons are perfect for it, sure you can't mount 4 and expect to have any energy
>but if you mix ammo and nrg weapons, as is required for survival in so many
>games, it is a very effective craft. j00 just need to get used to it.
There is no "makes it what it is" in a test game. Nothing right now is set in stone, and nothing is even officially written about how any ships should be. That's why the suggestion forum exists. However, one can easily deduce from the current characteristics and text descriptions (or names) as to what the devs are aiming for in terms of ship availability and roles. Heck, we may be arguing about all this for nothing, because for all we know the devs may be secretly planning to add whole new ships within the next few months. But for what we have now we need to help balance a few things out.
And as much l33t as you may be for your personal configuration, I'm having trouble aiming with the railguns on the Hornet. Other people are too. And there's a simple answer why--the reticule wobble. For the trillionth gazillionth time, the reticule wobbles too much for non-auto-aim weapons. Unfortunately by eliminating that wobble you create an uber fighter, which is something we're trying to avoid. The best compromise for keeping the ship class and making it an affective one is to give it better auto-aim weapons, thus the L-port suggestion.
Please don't take this the wrong way. I don't want any particular ship to be the best. I'm fixating on one or two ships because I feel they still need some balancing. If you've adjusted to a particular loadout and used the ship only once or twice, that's fine. I'm not going to argue whether your method is effective or not. But it's still a problem for the rest of us who wish to use the ship more often and have often found themselves hopelessly killed by everyone's Valk or whatever.
>Cannon is exactly what you want the gauss cannon to be (but let me guess, you
>don't ever use the PC because you want a AG and thus take away custumiztion
>options from yourself)
I personally believe the gauss cannon belongs in the L-port. It's a good weapon, but when you slap one on to a Valkyrie or Vulture, you got yourself an instant uber ship that exceeds all others. Having a high agility ship with high auto-aim weapons is seriously problematic. So what my suggestion would offer for the L-port would be three auto-aim weapons of choice: advanced gatling, plasma cannon, and gauss cannon. Auto-aim weapons belong in the L-port, because heavy ships need some way of compensating for the slower turn rate.
>The hornet's loadout is what makes it what it is, you change it and then what will
>I mount 2x Rails and 2x Gems on? Don't say you can't aim in it, I can nail ppl
>with those Rails (or perhaps I rail them with those rails). In addition gauss
>cannons are perfect for it, sure you can't mount 4 and expect to have any energy
>but if you mix ammo and nrg weapons, as is required for survival in so many
>games, it is a very effective craft. j00 just need to get used to it.
There is no "makes it what it is" in a test game. Nothing right now is set in stone, and nothing is even officially written about how any ships should be. That's why the suggestion forum exists. However, one can easily deduce from the current characteristics and text descriptions (or names) as to what the devs are aiming for in terms of ship availability and roles. Heck, we may be arguing about all this for nothing, because for all we know the devs may be secretly planning to add whole new ships within the next few months. But for what we have now we need to help balance a few things out.
And as much l33t as you may be for your personal configuration, I'm having trouble aiming with the railguns on the Hornet. Other people are too. And there's a simple answer why--the reticule wobble. For the trillionth gazillionth time, the reticule wobbles too much for non-auto-aim weapons. Unfortunately by eliminating that wobble you create an uber fighter, which is something we're trying to avoid. The best compromise for keeping the ship class and making it an affective one is to give it better auto-aim weapons, thus the L-port suggestion.
Please don't take this the wrong way. I don't want any particular ship to be the best. I'm fixating on one or two ships because I feel they still need some balancing. If you've adjusted to a particular loadout and used the ship only once or twice, that's fine. I'm not going to argue whether your method is effective or not. But it's still a problem for the rest of us who wish to use the ship more often and have often found themselves hopelessly killed by everyone's Valk or whatever.
"I can nail ppl with those Rails"
-Sorry, shooting people while they're typing doesn't count. The only things you can hit consistently with rails from a Hornet are ships larger than the hornet, like Ragnaroks and Centaurs. And even then you have to get within medium range to do it if they make an effort to avoid you.
As for the gauss, I don't think it should be an L-Port weapon. I think the projectile needs to be slowed down. I don't like how all the energy weaps move at about the same speed. I think the Gauss shot needs to be slowed down and the graviton shots need to be speeded up and consume less energy . ((But that's a debate for another post)
"you change it and then what will I mount 2x Rails and 2x Gems on? "
-Learn to live without it. Mount 1 rail and 2 swarms instead. Creativity options are key.
"What do you think of that?"
-So basically, you want to make it 1k stronger, more agile (by reducing mass), give it a built in battery, and make it recharge faster on top of that? No way. That would make it an uber-ship. Internal energy generation will ruin the concept of batteries. Take away batteries and boom, there goes one variable for customization. Faster recharge based on individual ships, there is no point in it. We need bigger batteries before we put these integrated into ship designs. Batteries restricted to ship classes would be fine. But you're idea is taking away from the complexity of the game, making it more like spacequake than an RPG. Then the 1k stronger bit. That is madness. Do you realize how much 1k is? That's 3-4 hits from a tachyon. In a fight, 3-4 hits is a big difference. Especially against a ship that already has the potential to outlast most others.
-Sorry, shooting people while they're typing doesn't count. The only things you can hit consistently with rails from a Hornet are ships larger than the hornet, like Ragnaroks and Centaurs. And even then you have to get within medium range to do it if they make an effort to avoid you.
As for the gauss, I don't think it should be an L-Port weapon. I think the projectile needs to be slowed down. I don't like how all the energy weaps move at about the same speed. I think the Gauss shot needs to be slowed down and the graviton shots need to be speeded up and consume less energy . ((But that's a debate for another post)
"you change it and then what will I mount 2x Rails and 2x Gems on? "
-Learn to live without it. Mount 1 rail and 2 swarms instead. Creativity options are key.
"What do you think of that?"
-So basically, you want to make it 1k stronger, more agile (by reducing mass), give it a built in battery, and make it recharge faster on top of that? No way. That would make it an uber-ship. Internal energy generation will ruin the concept of batteries. Take away batteries and boom, there goes one variable for customization. Faster recharge based on individual ships, there is no point in it. We need bigger batteries before we put these integrated into ship designs. Batteries restricted to ship classes would be fine. But you're idea is taking away from the complexity of the game, making it more like spacequake than an RPG. Then the 1k stronger bit. That is madness. Do you realize how much 1k is? That's 3-4 hits from a tachyon. In a fight, 3-4 hits is a big difference. Especially against a ship that already has the potential to outlast most others.
you people are sick.
What the heck is this wobble that people are talking about?
magus:
his propositions were an OR, not an AND. So this means:
boost hull 1k (repeat untill suficient)
OR
slightly lower mass
OR
better balance mass
OR
inherent energy generation
OR
fire energy weapons for 3/4 price"
Besides his point about inherent energy generation, is in addition to a normal battery, having 1 extra only usdable for the weapons, not change it to no battery needed.
Wobble = if you turn your reticult to the left on the hornet, then it will overshoot a little bit before comming to a stand, so attaining its rest position.
Arolte:
the gauss is a good weapon yes, it is even my preferred weapon because of its high chanc eof hitting. And it is easier to rip a heavy down to pieces.
But dont you thik that these weapons arent going to be limited by price. I for one, do. I think that for weapons like that youll need to invest at least 30 minutes of trading or so, just to have enough money to buy one. We have gotten so much money on our hands, that we dont consider price as a limiting factor anymore. But if you are struggling to get 10 k then a price of 10k for 1 gauss is very high.
Besides, if you make the gauss a large port weapon, then you are just making the plasma cannon unneeded.
Besides, I like to use the gauss on a warthog or a wraith or a prom. And if you do that then you are limiting me to only rockets in my small weapon port :(, because like you said other small weapons are useless on a heavy ship.
For the rest magus,
grav : increased damage "+150- 200", same speed,
tach: more speed keep damage "+20".
gauss: keep damage decrease speed with 20.
this way you will have a nice assortment of energyweapons.
note: Im not commenting on the rail, I dont like it because I cant hit a thing with it :(
/snip
Learn to live without it. Mount 1 rail and 2 swarms instead. Creativity options are key.
/end snip
I dont like this, you are making from a hornet a ship on par with a centaur. You are even making it better then a wraith :(.
Just keep the 4 s - weapons, there are a lot of combinations with it and doing one of the things that raon proposed could be a nice thing.
for instance for the sercos:
increase hull with 2 k
for itanis:
decrease energy drain with 3/4 th, 1/2th is good to though
for neutrals:
extra battery to power guns.
This way everybody is pleased ? I like it though :D
PS: if you want a ship with 3 large slots, then create it dont change a ship with 4 small slots into another, we have difference, so please dont take the difference away :(
cheers
PPS: celebrim, point noted. Still, dont expect that everybody who plays this game is an english doctorate, so please use some common spoken english, in stead of that mumbo-jumbo. This better ? :D
PPPS: For instance, I was pointing to this ;)
The entire basis of the essay is bunk, nor are the conclusions in line with what the author is supposedly advocating. I almost hate to respond to this, because when the premise is wrong, it tends to make every line of the arguement objectionable and as such I find myself writing enormously long posts. I'll try to confine myself to the most obvious points.
what is bunk? a nice word for BS? Advocating = saying? Premise = point of view? confine = restrain ? and I can go on and on and on :D
cheers
his propositions were an OR, not an AND. So this means:
boost hull 1k (repeat untill suficient)
OR
slightly lower mass
OR
better balance mass
OR
inherent energy generation
OR
fire energy weapons for 3/4 price"
Besides his point about inherent energy generation, is in addition to a normal battery, having 1 extra only usdable for the weapons, not change it to no battery needed.
Wobble = if you turn your reticult to the left on the hornet, then it will overshoot a little bit before comming to a stand, so attaining its rest position.
Arolte:
the gauss is a good weapon yes, it is even my preferred weapon because of its high chanc eof hitting. And it is easier to rip a heavy down to pieces.
But dont you thik that these weapons arent going to be limited by price. I for one, do. I think that for weapons like that youll need to invest at least 30 minutes of trading or so, just to have enough money to buy one. We have gotten so much money on our hands, that we dont consider price as a limiting factor anymore. But if you are struggling to get 10 k then a price of 10k for 1 gauss is very high.
Besides, if you make the gauss a large port weapon, then you are just making the plasma cannon unneeded.
Besides, I like to use the gauss on a warthog or a wraith or a prom. And if you do that then you are limiting me to only rockets in my small weapon port :(, because like you said other small weapons are useless on a heavy ship.
For the rest magus,
grav : increased damage "+150- 200", same speed,
tach: more speed keep damage "+20".
gauss: keep damage decrease speed with 20.
this way you will have a nice assortment of energyweapons.
note: Im not commenting on the rail, I dont like it because I cant hit a thing with it :(
/snip
Learn to live without it. Mount 1 rail and 2 swarms instead. Creativity options are key.
/end snip
I dont like this, you are making from a hornet a ship on par with a centaur. You are even making it better then a wraith :(.
Just keep the 4 s - weapons, there are a lot of combinations with it and doing one of the things that raon proposed could be a nice thing.
for instance for the sercos:
increase hull with 2 k
for itanis:
decrease energy drain with 3/4 th, 1/2th is good to though
for neutrals:
extra battery to power guns.
This way everybody is pleased ? I like it though :D
PS: if you want a ship with 3 large slots, then create it dont change a ship with 4 small slots into another, we have difference, so please dont take the difference away :(
cheers
PPS: celebrim, point noted. Still, dont expect that everybody who plays this game is an english doctorate, so please use some common spoken english, in stead of that mumbo-jumbo. This better ? :D
PPPS: For instance, I was pointing to this ;)
The entire basis of the essay is bunk, nor are the conclusions in line with what the author is supposedly advocating. I almost hate to respond to this, because when the premise is wrong, it tends to make every line of the arguement objectionable and as such I find myself writing enormously long posts. I'll try to confine myself to the most obvious points.
what is bunk? a nice word for BS? Advocating = saying? Premise = point of view? confine = restrain ? and I can go on and on and on :D
cheers
>Arolte:
>the gauss is a good weapon yes, it is even my preferred weapon
>because of its high chanc eof hitting. And it is easier to rip a heavy
>down to pieces.
As I said before, giving a high auto-aim weapon to a high agility fighter is very problematic. It creates a very unbalanced atmosphere, as the Valk and Vulture have proven so well. Time and time again I've gotten wasted by these fighters who literally do circles around me and plug their gauss cannons right into my face. Dodging is nearly impossible at such a close distance, especially when your enemy is out of sight 50% of the time while they're flying circles around you.
>But dont you thik that these weapons arent going to be limited by price.
>I for one, do. I think that for weapons like that youll need to invest at
>least 30 minutes of trading or so, just to have enough money to buy
>one. We have gotten so much money on our hands, that we dont
>consider price as a limiting factor anymore. But if you are struggling to
>get 10 k then a price of 10k for 1 gauss is very high.
Price in my opinion is a poor way of balancing weapons out. It helps some, but not very much. The reason being is that the person with the uber weapon will tend to live longer. Whereas the person with cheaper weapons will die more, but will ultimately pay more because they have to buy a new ship every time. In addition to that, newbies who join the game will also be screwed, whereas rich vets with these uber expensive weapons will hop in and waste 'em easily.
>Besides, if you make the gauss a large port weapon, then you are just
>making the plasma cannon unneeded.
In what way? The tachyon and graviton blasters are similar, but have different properties. The gauss cannon and plasma cannon could easily complement each other without being totally identical. It should restore that tier system that's already in place for most energy weapons.
>the gauss is a good weapon yes, it is even my preferred weapon
>because of its high chanc eof hitting. And it is easier to rip a heavy
>down to pieces.
As I said before, giving a high auto-aim weapon to a high agility fighter is very problematic. It creates a very unbalanced atmosphere, as the Valk and Vulture have proven so well. Time and time again I've gotten wasted by these fighters who literally do circles around me and plug their gauss cannons right into my face. Dodging is nearly impossible at such a close distance, especially when your enemy is out of sight 50% of the time while they're flying circles around you.
>But dont you thik that these weapons arent going to be limited by price.
>I for one, do. I think that for weapons like that youll need to invest at
>least 30 minutes of trading or so, just to have enough money to buy
>one. We have gotten so much money on our hands, that we dont
>consider price as a limiting factor anymore. But if you are struggling to
>get 10 k then a price of 10k for 1 gauss is very high.
Price in my opinion is a poor way of balancing weapons out. It helps some, but not very much. The reason being is that the person with the uber weapon will tend to live longer. Whereas the person with cheaper weapons will die more, but will ultimately pay more because they have to buy a new ship every time. In addition to that, newbies who join the game will also be screwed, whereas rich vets with these uber expensive weapons will hop in and waste 'em easily.
>Besides, if you make the gauss a large port weapon, then you are just
>making the plasma cannon unneeded.
In what way? The tachyon and graviton blasters are similar, but have different properties. The gauss cannon and plasma cannon could easily complement each other without being totally identical. It should restore that tier system that's already in place for most energy weapons.
Can we at least agree to have the option of swapping 2 S-ports for 1 L-port? The only exception being special ships, so the Valk doesn't become too powerful. That might be the key to making everyone happy.
I'm sorry to say that I still don't agree with most of the views presented. I honestly think an L-port will help balance the Hornet by a lot, without messing around with agility or whatever.
The Promy also needs some tweaking around with. I think an additional L-port will help with that. A hull boost isn't really necessary. I think we all know that from the past.
I'm sorry to say that I still don't agree with most of the views presented. I honestly think an L-port will help balance the Hornet by a lot, without messing around with agility or whatever.
The Promy also needs some tweaking around with. I think an additional L-port will help with that. A hull boost isn't really necessary. I think we all know that from the past.
arolte,
no , if we start making exceptions then we are further away from home.
In my view, the wraith is the weapon if you want 2 small ones and a big one. The warthog is the one with 1 big and 1 small and very good agility. The atlas is the one with a normal hull, a serious cargoload and 1 big and small weapon.
If you start altering that, then you are taking away the identity of a hornet. A hornet is a supportship, it can dish out a lot of damage, but can defend itself relatively well. Not perfect, it will go down against a valk or a vult, but against a rag or so it will shine.
Besides if you do that, then you will get a wraith with 2 large ports, or a rag with 3 large and 1 small, imagine him ramming you with 3 jackhammers, or even 3 avalons when they get put back in place :(. or even a dual avalon - suicide :(.
I will tell you, it doesnt attract me much.
no , if we start making exceptions then we are further away from home.
In my view, the wraith is the weapon if you want 2 small ones and a big one. The warthog is the one with 1 big and 1 small and very good agility. The atlas is the one with a normal hull, a serious cargoload and 1 big and small weapon.
If you start altering that, then you are taking away the identity of a hornet. A hornet is a supportship, it can dish out a lot of damage, but can defend itself relatively well. Not perfect, it will go down against a valk or a vult, but against a rag or so it will shine.
Besides if you do that, then you will get a wraith with 2 large ports, or a rag with 3 large and 1 small, imagine him ramming you with 3 jackhammers, or even 3 avalons when they get put back in place :(. or even a dual avalon - suicide :(.
I will tell you, it doesnt attract me much.