Ship Ballance Baseline

TexMurphy

Fleet battle ballance should always be considered over duels... this is a mmpog not a lan game...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radi

1. According to your guidelines Tex, nothing changes. Fast ships (LF, MF) run away, average (F) get by, heavy ones are going to get ganked. Same what we have now (fleet = more than 10). It becomes game of numbers and "initiative". Greater initiative gives more options and most likely better results (kill ratio). Even in equal fleet numbers.

Did you look in the text file attached with the original post?

Fast ships are heavy and have less FFs.

Slower ships are lighter and have more FFs.

HFs around 500v with around 85 accelleration and LFs around 440v with 100 accelleration.

The light ships have to use their "lightness"/good accell to get out of the situation. If they run straight the heavy ship will catch them.

So as I said Fast ships have worse accell then slow ships. Never ever should one ship have speed and accelleration over another ship.

Tex

Montaugh

Before we get into baseline ballance why don't we talk about how long we want a fight to last and the overall feel the playerbase wants from the combat. This will have a drastic effect on baseline ballance, factional balance and innerfactional balance depending on its outcome.

In classic the differences between a newb and a seasoned pilot were such that a fight could litterally end in a matter of seconds. This doesn't really induct new players into jumpgate but between two seasoned pilots the fight could end just a fast only with each taking far more damage.

What should we have the devs look at for what we want in overall terms of balance beyond just ship balance? What do players want from the combat fast, furious and over in seconds or slug fests which take several minutes to resolve? How should fighter/MF/LF be in terms of feel? What roles would we like them to fill? Should we even have 3 fighters or rather break them down to bomber, interceptor, fighter with each having a specific role? How do we want to balance the pvp/pve ships or do we want to keep them as seperate as possible? Do we want a battle tow option or not? What sort of factional benifits would we like to see?

Another thing to look at is subsystem damage. Should we have subsystem damage or not? How would it effect overall balance?

While its interesting to propose ship balance we need to let the dev know what we want from our baseline of how combat itself should function so it can be better quantified in balance suggestions.

Wild_Bill

I just hope "they" include a do-it-all ship like the Vulture, Oct HM, for those who chose the more solitary path. Medium hauling, good to great mining, modest worth in a fight but able to survive multiple light attackers (whether it's 6 C3s or a couple of LF). Add two sz 1 or one sz 2 gun slots/turret to the two fixed sz 5 slots it already has, plus an extra sz 2 or 3 missile slot and the Vulture would be nearly perfect. The 8th modex slot would be handy as well for artys.

Even for the Military/combat crowd, what about the scouts/rangers? I see no mention of them. Admittedly I have small experience with combat and I don't think I ever used a scout for anything more than towing flux (before the rangers came along), they still have a place in the game, or should have. I really don't know if there needs to be two seperate classes of them, but admit to my own ignorance in this theatre. I only use the ranger for Trannys, occasional arty hunting and even more rarely, beacon missions.

My point being, balanced or not, not everyone is going to be primarily oriented towards fleet engagements or even duels between two chance met enemies. There are still going to be folks out there without large numbers of squad-mates for escorts who have no great interest in fighting but instead want to do more of the mining/producing/hauling or exploring PvE type stuff.

We need more than just Transports, FT, LM, Tugs and Tows for the non-combat crowd. Currently, at least for Octs, the HM is a good jack-of-all-trades ship. I think Jumpgate Evolution will need something like it as well.

Wilson

I agree with Tex with the speed/acceleration thing. That imo should be a must.

The more I think about subsystem damage, the less I like it. More than likely you would be a sitting duck with most any subsystem being disabled or reduced. So fluxing or fighting, chances are you will die.

Poseidon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexMurphy

Fleet battle ballance should always be considered over duels... this is a mmpog not a lan game...

Did you look in the text file attached with the original post?

Fast ships are heavy and have less FFs.

Slower ships are lighter and have more FFs.

HFs around 500v with around 85 accelleration and LFs around 440v with 100 accelleration.

The light ships have to use their "lightness"/good accell to get out of the situation. If they run straight the heavy ship will catch them.

So as I said Fast ships have worse accell then slow ships. Never ever should one ship have speed and accelleration over another ship.

Tex

That right there always bothered me. To me, (and I may have been spoiled by other games) Light fighter is fast but light on guns. Heavy fighter is slower but has much more firepower. It just sticks as wrong in my mind that a light can't get away from heavy.

Tstrike3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wild_Bill

I just hope "they" include a do-it-all ship like the Vulture, Oct HM, for those who chose the more solitary path. Medium hauling, good to great mining, modest worth in a fight but able to survive multiple light attackers (whether it's 6 C3s or a couple of LF). Add two sz 1 or one sz 2 gun slots/turret to the two fixed sz 5 slots it already has, plus an extra sz 2 or 3 missile slot and the Vulture would be nearly perfect. The 8th modex slot would be handy as well for artys.

Even for the Military/combat crowd, what about the scouts/rangers? I see no mention of them. Admittedly I have small experience with combat and I don't think I ever used a scout for anything more than towing flux (before the rangers came along), they still have a place in the game, or should have. I really don't know if there needs to be two seperate classes of them, but admit to my own ignorance in this theatre. I only use the ranger for Trannys, occasional arty hunting and even more rarely, beacon missions.

My point being, balanced or not, not everyone is going to be primarily oriented towards fleet engagements or even duels between two chance met enemies. There are still going to be folks out there without large numbers of squad-mates for escorts who have no great interest in fighting but instead want to do more of the mining/producing/hauling or exploring PvE type stuff.

We need more than just Transports, FT, LM, Tugs and Tows for the non-combat crowd. Currently, at least for Octs, the HM is a good jack-of-all-trades ship. I think Jumpgate Evolution will need something like it as well.

Nope. I like the current classes of ships how they are now. As someone said, its not the ship, but the pilot that makes a ship more or less.

They just need to be aligned along the lines that both Tex and Wilson are talking about.

Most of all they need to look at the balancing of the Pest: Its is bascially a light fighter on Steroids.

dailatron

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tstrike3

Most of all they need to look at the balancing of the Pest: Its is bascially a light fighter on Steroids.

I think they just got the guns mucked up and put the Oct MF gun set up on it by mistake and the Oct MF got the pest's guns.

Jonboy

The Jumpgate-c pest is OP because it is a light tensy AND because it has a profile that's not duelist friendly and has wicked turn rates and acceleration. Quants turned to it from the 'phoon because the 'phoon is so hard to learn.

Tex, U didn't really mention turn rates. Being agile is really important, as is turn-rate relevance in throttle-control. Speaking of throttle control, I could start a whole new forum-war over whether we should have full-throttle/full-fire-rate or not.

But most importantly, iirc, the reason why fast ships also had high acceleration, was because of the DANCER engine (To check this is gonna be a pita - so i'm gonna post and rely on memory). Are you gonna need some whacky masses to balance this as you want? This could easily end up being an equation fest....

P.S. I have a turret right now, thinking of GG... oh yeah.... mmmm.

GrimGriz

Is it such a raging turret?

Aphelion

Turn rates also make a steeper learning curve. Look at tensy and phoon pilots aiming ability.

Tstrike3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aphelion

Turn rates also make a steeper learning curve. Look at tensy and phoon pilots aiming ability.

I did some numbers and found out that the Pest in any form is a Light Fighter on steroids (WARNING: Acquiring Stat Geek Mode)

CodeName Mass(kg) TMR
Tempest Laser 38,195 00.8/131.0
Tempest Ammo 39,995 96.3/125.1
Tempest ION 39,845 96.6/125.6
----------------Solrain Interceptor------------------

Ceptor Laser 35,162 109.5/142.3
Ceptor Ammo 36,862 104.4/135.7
Ceptor ION 36,262 106.2/138.0

If you look at the loadouts not much difference except:

* It has one extra gun
* It flies and turns a tad slower than the Solrain Interceptor
* It has 2000 units more of armor than the Solrain Interceptor

Here is how our Tempest stacks up against the Solrain Intensity (I am sure the Phoenix has a problem with it too (but it enjoys one extra gun):

CodeName Mass(kg) TMR
Tempest Laser 38,195 00.8/131.0
Tempest Ammo 39,995 96.3/125.1
Tempest ION 39,845 96.6/125.6

------------------Solrain Intensity---------------------------

Tensity Laser 48,538 90.7/117.8
Tensity Ammo 51,438 85.5/111.2
Tensity ION 48,600 ? (got lazy, sorry)

As you can see, This medium fighter can basically pwn any Solrain fighter class ship. Is that balance?

Ambrosius

You have to look at balance for entire military fleet.

TRI Pilots On Duty
On Duty:	18
In Flight:	11
Solrain:	1
Octavius:	7
Quantar:	10
TRI:	0

Category	Pilot	Score
Kills	Algore	2,742
Kill Ratio*	_KROM_	470.000 %
Bounty Collected	Killntime	407,838,097
Munitions Accuracy*	Psycho	85.915 %
Projectile Accuracy*	BADDAL	100 %
Total Conflux Kills	vorlon31	148,583
Experience	CaptainCow	100,000,000
Mission Success Ratio*	Arkady	100 %
Insurance Rating*	Knork	10 %
Net Worth	McPlowed	c22,489,501,046
Duty Hours	RedDwarf	16,903.0
*minimum requirements to qualify


	Montaugh Recruit Pilot Name: Gohlem Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 23	Re: Ship Ballance Baseline Before we get into baseline ballance why don't we talk about how long we want a fight to last and the overall feel the playerbase wants from the combat. This will have a drastic effect on baseline ballance, factional balance and innerfactional balance depending on its outcome. In classic the differences between a newb and a seasoned pilot were such that a fight could litterally end in a matter of seconds. This doesn't really induct new players into jumpgate but between two seasoned pilots the fight could end just a fast only with each taking far more damage. What should we have the devs look at for what we want in overall terms of balance beyond just ship balance? What do players want from the combat fast, furious and over in seconds or slug fests which take several minutes to resolve? How should fighter/MF/LF be in terms of feel? What roles would we like them to fill? Should we even have 3 fighters or rather break them down to bomber, interceptor, fighter with each having a specific role? How do we want to balance the pvp/pve ships or do we want to keep them as seperate as possible? Do we want a battle tow option or not? What sort of factional benifits would we like to see? Another thing to look at is subsystem damage. Should we have subsystem damage or not? How would it effect overall balance? While its interesting to propose ship balance we need to let the dev know what we want from our baseline of how combat itself should function so it can be better quantified in balance suggestions.


	Wild_Bill Member Pilot Name: Wild_Bill Faction: Octavius Joystick: MS Sidewinder Precision Plus Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Abilene Texas Posts: 794	Re: Ship Ballance Baseline I just hope "they" include a do-it-all ship like the Vulture, Oct HM, for those who chose the more solitary path. Medium hauling, good to great mining, modest worth in a fight but able to survive multiple light attackers (whether it's 6 C3s or a couple of LF). Add two sz 1 or one sz 2 gun slots/turret to the two fixed sz 5 slots it already has, plus an extra sz 2 or 3 missile slot and the Vulture would be nearly perfect. The 8th modex slot would be handy as well for artys. Even for the Military/combat crowd, what about the scouts/rangers? I see no mention of them. Admittedly I have small experience with combat and I don't think I ever used a scout for anything more than towing flux (before the rangers came along), they still have a place in the game, or should have. I really don't know if there needs to be two seperate classes of them, but admit to my own ignorance in this theatre. I only use the ranger for Trannys, occasional arty hunting and even more rarely, beacon missions. My point being, balanced or not, not everyone is going to be primarily oriented towards fleet engagements or even duels between two chance met enemies. There are still going to be folks out there without large numbers of squad-mates for escorts who have no great interest in fighting but instead want to do more of the mining/producing/hauling or exploring PvE type stuff. We need more than just Transports, FT, LM, Tugs and Tows for the non-combat crowd. Currently, at least for Octs, the HM is a good jack-of-all-trades ship. I think Jumpgate Evolution will need something like it as well.


	Wilson Cadet Pilot Name: Wilson Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 31	Re: Ship Ballance Baseline I agree with Tex with the speed/acceleration thing. That imo should be a must. The more I think about subsystem damage, the less I like it. More than likely you would be a sitting duck with most any subsystem being disabled or reduced. So fluxing or fighting, chances are you will die.


	Jonboy Member Pilot Name: Jonboy Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 315	Re: Ship Ballance Baseline The Jumpgate-c pest is OP because it is a light tensy AND because it has a profile that's not duelist friendly and has wicked turn rates and acceleration. Quants turned to it from the 'phoon because the 'phoon is so hard to learn. Tex, U didn't really mention turn rates. Being agile is really important, as is turn-rate relevance in throttle-control. Speaking of throttle control, I could start a whole new forum-war over whether we should have full-throttle/full-fire-rate or not. But most importantly, iirc, the reason why fast ships also had high acceleration, was because of the DANCER engine (To check this is gonna be a pita - so i'm gonna post and rely on memory). Are you gonna need some whacky masses to balance this as you want? This could easily end up being an equation fest.... P.S. I have a turret right now, thinking of GG... oh yeah.... mmmm.


	GrimGriz Highest Order Hypocrite Faction: non-aligned Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Portland Posts: 2,646	Re: Ship Ballance Baseline Is it such a raging turret?


	Aphelion Member Pilot Name: Aphelion Joystick: MS FF1 Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Ring View Posts: 315	Re: Ship Ballance Baseline Turn rates also make a steeper learning curve. Look at tensy and phoon pilots aiming ability.
		__________________


	Ambrosius Member Pilot Name: Ambrosius Faction: Quantar Joystick: MS FF2 Join Date: May 2004 Location: The Stone Temple Posts: 1,647	Re: Ship Ballance Baseline You have to look at balance for entire military fleet.