Pilot Archive
Thread: New Ship Stats
warpish
Wed May 11, 2005 8:53 am
#105
>>Everyone has the same effective stats on maneuverability, firepower, and mass.
>>Real equipment trade-offs are now possible to suit flying skill
>>
>Trade off? what trade off?
>
>You don't have to sacrafice mass for speed or manuverabilty. You can have both. Nor
>>
>Trade off? what trade off?
>
>You don't have to sacrafice mass for speed or manuverabilty. You can have both. Nor
>do you have have to sacrafice firepower for defense, You can have both.
>
>In a 65K mass chassis i can pack (in addition to the standard stuff like reactor, armor,
>
>In a 65K mass chassis i can pack (in addition to the standard stuff like reactor, armor,
>chaff, CD, boooster, etc etc)
>
>L6 engine
>L8 Blaster
>MK II IR missle
>MK III shield.
>
>
>And i still have 2 to 3K mass to play with. Overlay that into a 95K mass chassis and
>
>L6 engine
>L8 Blaster
>MK II IR missle
>MK III shield.
>
>
>And i still have 2 to 3K mass to play with. Overlay that into a 95K mass chassis and
>nowi have 33K mass to play with. Oh whatever shall i do.. hmmm.
>
>First things first, ill ditch the L6 engine and put in a nice RE'd 97 speed 76 YPR L8
>
>First things first, ill ditch the L6 engine and put in a nice RE'd 97 speed 76 YPR L8
>engine. Swapping this engine, in, i now have 16K mass to play with. Think i might
>swap my shield while im at it. MK III is about 10K mass, add taht to the 16K, that
>gives me room for a 26K mass shield, which, coincidently, i have a couple of L8
>RE'd reward shields laying around at about that mass .
>Alls said and done i now have a
>L8 engine
>L8 shield
>L8 blaster
>MK II IR missle
>
>and now im running EO4 on top of that.
>
>Looking at this package, what i have here is the best legit shield you can have,
>Alls said and done i now have a
>L8 engine
>L8 shield
>L8 blaster
>MK II IR missle
>
>and now im running EO4 on top of that.
>
>Looking at this package, what i have here is the best legit shield you can have,
>best cannonyou can have short of an RE'd L10, most certainly one of the best
>engines. All fitted into a ship that has the best manuverablity.
>
>So again, wheres the trade off again? I seem to have missed that part, cause
>
>So again, wheres the trade off again? I seem to have missed that part, cause
>i havent traded off a single thing.
Your message indicates a design for maximizingfirepower and maneuverability, but, you're sacrificing defense - which is the trade-off. You've not improved your nominal armor (which I suspect was absolutely lowest priority and your design keeps it that way), you haven't improved your boost top speed - which is actually quite valuable for both offense and defense, you're also claiming mostly RE'd gear for the mass and not upgrading your capacitor to support your bigger gun. I suppose you're still counting on WO3 remaining and as I pointed out earlier, the trade-offs will become much more viable once WO3 is (ever) fixed. You also haven't improved your countermeasures launcher. Which considering the likelihood of heavier and more effective enemy ordnance is a decision to sacrifice defense. Entirely consistent with your design, still, that was a trade-off you made.
If you weren't running EO4 on your 65k mass, then you were doing something wrong. The maneuverability gain for EO4 is so great that I could care less if you were using the best RE'd gear and only EO3, my non-RE'd fighter would have superior maneuverability and comparable speed with EO4 to your EO3. Don't claim you weren't using EO4 because of component damage, you're example above is chock full of RE'd components, and YES, you did make trade-offs, ones you didn't realize you actually made it seems.
I'd evaluate your design as a turn-fighter, high offense, mediocre defense. Which is exactly designed to your preferred style. Compare the following design.
Crafted-
Reactor Mark 4 w/overcharger
Starfighter Engine Mark 5 w/overdriver
Booster Mark 3 w/overdriver
Weapon Mark 3 w/any upgrade
Capacitor Mark 1 or 2 depending on weapon upgrade
Missile launcher (Image-Rec 2, if energy budget works)
Micro-Chaff countermeasures (an improvement over the 65k mass loadout)
Armor Mark 3 (no energy maintenance, an improvement over 65k mass loadout)
nominal droid interface
nominal shield (due to energy budget - crafted reactor limitation on power output impacts weapons, shields, and ordnance choices heavily).
Once crafted YPR improves this design will compete with your RE'd design because
1) Top speed before EO4 is 105-106 (maximizes speed, not maneuverability)
2) Boosted speed is +9 speed more than typical Booster Mk 1
3) without reward reactor or loot reactor or reward gun, Mark 3 weapons, but, includes a missile launcher
4) drop the missile launcher and afford (energy and mass-wise) a bigger gun (enough to mount a mk 5 weapon and drop armor mass if that's the choice)
So a crafted design can be almost 20 speed faster than your RE'd design, if a bit behind in YPR which we know will be improved. Even without the YPR, flying this design as a boom-n-zoomer would do well. Once YPR has improved a crafted design (with restrained energy budget) could outrun and turn nearly with the existing reward RE'd components you proposed.
So yeah, not having to spend eight solid months (to a year) accumulating uber loot components to re-engineer and having a disposable PvP fightercraft I think is a just great. Keep your RE'd gear, give me the mass and crafted components that at their best are within 12% of RE-max and I'll rely on skill to get me the rest of the way. As few PvPers have the absolute RE-max gear, the crafted design might fall within 7% of typical RE'd gear, which is as close as I could dare expect. From that small difference, Pilot skill and Situation Awareness will overcome the equipment gap. Then you'll see more players PvPing because they will be able to replace their components without having to farm loot for eight months or so.
Aside,
The net predictor code has the worst time when ships have a high speed differential between them. When relative speed is reduced (from a overtake attack run) the netcode has always agreeded with what I expected from my client view and server acknowledgement. So, bringing all speeds up actually helps the performance in space and in PvP. Whether you can draw a bead or not remains a question. Head on's at that speed will be very twitch specific (and luck dependent), but, for typical overtake attacks, the netcode is doing fine when the relative speeds (not absolute speeds) are low.
Ducimus
Wed May 11, 2005 9:17 am
#106
>>Your message indicates a design for maximizing firepower and maneuverability, but, you're sacrificing defense - which is the trade-off. You've not improved your nominal armor (which I suspect was absolutely lowest priority and your design keeps it that way), you haven't improved your boost top speed
>>
Nope, You know that an L8 RE'd shield is 2555 F/B right? Only thing you'll find higher than that is a POB shield, and those are 250K mass. yes, your right, armor is the absolute lowest priority. Its what you do with any mass leftover. I just make sure i have some, alot of ppl don't even do that. Booster is irrelvant. All you *need* is a MK II booster with experimentation into how much energy it burns. A MK II booster with a 10-11 second burn time goes a long way.
The only thing that is ultimatly relevant is sheild, engine, weapon. Those three things are what produce the output desired. Everything just supports that.
By statement stands, i have traded off NOTHING. I think the reality is, is that we have alot of newfound pilots that want their uber composite in space and will do/say anything to keep it. Maybe they don't want to learn how to configure their ships like the rest of us did, maybe they dont want a balanced game. Many of us who made pilot our primary profession however, DO. And we don't want to see the profession and space ruined.
NO SHIP SHOULD EVER HAVE HIGH MASS WITH HIGH YPR. Period. That in , and of itself, lacks any trade off. How it worked in the past, and how it should work now is:
High mass = low YPR
Mediem mass = mediem YPR
Low mass = High YPR
Thats a trade off that was, and should be JTL, these new clone fighters break this sytem of balancing badly (yes some devations were to be expected to make them cool, but not to the extreme that they are).
I dont see how anyone can justify these new ships by any stretch of the imagination.
>>
Nope, You know that an L8 RE'd shield is 2555 F/B right? Only thing you'll find higher than that is a POB shield, and those are 250K mass. yes, your right, armor is the absolute lowest priority. Its what you do with any mass leftover. I just make sure i have some, alot of ppl don't even do that. Booster is irrelvant. All you *need* is a MK II booster with experimentation into how much energy it burns. A MK II booster with a 10-11 second burn time goes a long way.
The only thing that is ultimatly relevant is sheild, engine, weapon. Those three things are what produce the output desired. Everything just supports that.
By statement stands, i have traded off NOTHING. I think the reality is, is that we have alot of newfound pilots that want their uber composite in space and will do/say anything to keep it. Maybe they don't want to learn how to configure their ships like the rest of us did, maybe they dont want a balanced game. Many of us who made pilot our primary profession however, DO. And we don't want to see the profession and space ruined.
NO SHIP SHOULD EVER HAVE HIGH MASS WITH HIGH YPR. Period. That in , and of itself, lacks any trade off. How it worked in the past, and how it should work now is:
High mass = low YPR
Mediem mass = mediem YPR
Low mass = High YPR
Thats a trade off that was, and should be JTL, these new clone fighters break this sytem of balancing badly (yes some devations were to be expected to make them cool, but not to the extreme that they are).
I dont see how anyone can justify these new ships by any stretch of the imagination.
CuchulainnDarklight
Wed May 11, 2005 9:22 am
#107
Well said!
Ducimus wrote:
Many of us who made pilot our primary profession however, DO. And we don't want to see the profession and space ruined.
NO SHIP SHOULD EVER HAVE HIGH MASS WITH HIGH YPR. Period. That in , and of itself, lacks any trade off. How it worked in the past, and how it should work now is:
High mass = low YPR
Mediem mass = mediem YPR
Low mass = High YPR
Thats a trade off that was, and should be JTL, these new clone fighters break this sytem of balancing badly (yes some devations were to be expected to make them cool, but not to the extreme that they are).
I dont see how anyone can justify these new ships by any stretch of the imagination.
DosWindo
Wed May 11, 2005 11:46 am
#108
NO SHIP SHOULD EVER HAVE HIGH MASS WITH HIGH YPR. Period. That in , and of itself, lacks any trade off. How it worked in the past, and how it should work now is:
High mass = low YPR
Mediem mass = mediem YPR
Low mass = High YPR
-----------------------
High mass = low YPR
Mediem mass = mediem YPR
Low mass = High YPR
-----------------------
I third that. Especially instarterships. on the Privateer side, two ships have been made completely pointless purchases. The Ix and the Kihraxz or whatever it's called; and the dunie only stays valid because you can mount two guns. When they first started talking about high mass chassis, I was thinking they'd boost the beginner ships to like 40-50K, the X-wing to 130k or so. Ya know... make them competitive(though the Xwing already was). Now instead of handing us some new alternatives, we've been handed a mandate to spend more dough to be competitive.
I agree, anybody that can look at these ships and say, "yep, they're balanced to the rest of the pack." has got to go do some serious reevaluation. I think the new stuff IS better, was meant to be better, and is meant to be better because they want folks to be forced into buying ROTW to stay competitive.
Now, the fact that you have to mine the goods to make these ships out in space will probably boost the cost of these ships. That, I suppose will be a good thing. But nonetheless, the reason now to fly an A-wing, a Y-wing, or anything that isn't a high mass beginner ship or an X-wing, is "it's cheaper". Bollocks. You pick a ship for an application. You pull that big ol' Y or B wing out to chase that vette down. You hop in that A-wing to take out those TIE's. Not sure what you'll be up against? Hop in the X-wing. But now... apparently we don't need those 3 extra slots, after all. Two ships give you space superiority in every application.
I gotta say also, the prospect of getting Vader's old ship, especially anybody who can do the quest, is just downright silly. It shoulda been just another schematic that the SW's got that had competetive stats to the rest of the ships. Have Vader give them a stinkin' Chapor snippet... ;P Jes kiddin'... but what it is,is the devs answer to all the munchkins that have posted in here wanting the Jedi "I win" button out in space. You got your wish, folks. A high mass ship withhigh YPR.
I'll keep playing, until it gets completely stupid like the ground game got. I think the CU did take some steps in the right direction(bugs not considered). But that's for another board.
A nasty, NASTY hit to balance, these ships are. Hose JTL like the jedi in the ground game, it could...
DosWindo
Wed May 11, 2005 1:09 pm
#109
I did. When I mentioned what I was EXPECTING the devs to do. Make the starter ships competitive. Balance them. Balance ALL the ships. Giving specs is great, but really doubt that this situation occured because the devs AREN'T AWARE that the new ships aren't in balance with the old.
This isn't a numbers error, this is an error in philosophy. This raising of the bar was done with obvious purpose. In terms of all the new ships balancing with each other, they are pretty close, so you know they were paying attention to this. They built them purposefully to drive what is already there into obsoletion, for reasons I've already mentioned.
So while I understand what you're saying, I don't believe a correction in numbers isTHE solution,we need a correction in philosophy. That philosophy being "unbalancing the ships in JTL is bad", no matter how many munchkins it brings into space. They know the numbers, better than any of us do. It's not just me ranting, it's me pointing out a fundamental philosophy flaw in this new publish; the same one that all but killed the ground game months ago.
Once that is established, then yeah, it's time to talk numbers, in which yours are a good start, I think.
DosWindo
Wed May 11, 2005 1:30 pm
#110
Though again, strangely enough, no one has mentioned theVersaik, or whatever that new Neutral ship is that came out. A ship with the same manueverability stats as the A-wing, with nearly 3 times the tonnage. Granted, it only has one blaster point, but that recipe makes for what could be EASILY the fastest ship in the game. It'll fit a high mass 120 speed engine in with room to spare, and yet, nobody talks about it. Along with a high mass booster. Think about it:
150k mass=
10K reactor(if that... with only one blaster, 10k energy is more than enough)
3k Cap (again, only one gun)
30K blaster (only got one, may as well get a monster...)
30K engine (zoom zoom zoom...)
15K boosters (see engine)
15K droid interface(get that EO3-4 up and cookin, maybe a WO?)
That's 103k... 47k to spare...
Compare that to what you can put in an A-wing(the "hypermanueverable craft")and tell me how balanced we are...
alyris
Wed May 11, 2005 2:47 pm
#111
I'm not sure how old this thread is, and maybe I'll make a new one. But, I got my grievious fighter today, and equiped it. It is NO where near the Tie Int or Adv in terms of handling, I would put it equal to an X-wing. It is a nice fighter, and I'm happy with it, but it is not the end of the world, the Tie Adv is still king (although I have not flown the jedi).
Kirsha - Kettemoor
Vegitaa
Thu May 12, 2005 12:15 am
#112
^^^^ What about changing stats to something like.....
or.....
- TIE-Adv: 80k Resources ~65k mass [SP: 2 Guns] 1 missile [Spdx 1.0 Acc 40 Dec 60 Pitch 300 Yaw 300 Roll 150]
- A-Wing: 80k Resources ~65k mass [SP: 1 Guns] 1 missile[Spdx 1.0 Acc 40 Dec 60 Pitch 250 Yaw 250 Roll 125]
- Scyk: 5k Resources ~12k mass [SP: 1 Guns] 1 missile [Spdx 0.95 Acc 50 Dec 50 Pitch 600 Yaw 600 Roll 300]
- Grievous Fighter: 80K mass, 2 SP weapon, 1 ordnance, [Spdx 1.0 Acc 40 Dec 60 Pitch 275 Yaw 275 Roll 125]
- Jedi Starfighter: 80K mass, 2 SP weapon, 1 ordnance, [Spdx 1.0 Acc 40 Dec 60 Pitch 250 Yaw 250 Roll 125]
- Heavy Z-95: 65K mass, 1 SP weapon, 1 ordnance, .95 speed, 250/250/150 P/Y/R
- Heavy TIE/Ln: 65K mass, 1 SP weapon, 1 ordnance, .95 speed, 250/250/150 P/Y/R
- Heavy Scyk: 65K mass, 1 SP weapon, 1 ordnance, .95 speed, 250/250/150 P/Y/R
Instead of general statements like... "better than..." "worse than...." propose stats. The current "live" stats are in this thread. I keep hearing I don't like X, Y, and Z but no solutions. Why complain if you don't have an idea to fix it?
Propose solutions here so Tomo can get them up to the Dev's. Otherwise we're going to see another blatant NERF that just makes things useless. These new ships should not be useless. We've been asking for more ships to be added since Beta. Now we have them! Instead of destroying them let us, the players, propose new stats that we can all live with regardless of faction or server.
/bowrespectfully
Ducimus
Thu May 12, 2005 9:15 am
#113
Kitten_Starsider wrote:Can you post the chassis stats on your grieveous'?The acceleration values. They should be 10.4/10.4/5.2 which is twice of a Tie Interceptor or Advanced.
Those values seem to be a common theme don't they?
I have a theory. *puts on tin foil hat*
These new ROTW ships that we all "love" so much.... Ill bet all sony did was copy n paste the coding for starterships, edited the mass and model displayed, and called it good. Ill betcha the art department spent more time on these ships then the designers and coders did!
Cause they sure don't seem well thought out, and are remarklbly similar
alyris
Thu May 12, 2005 1:49 pm
#114
Kitten_Starsider wrote:
Can you post the chassis stats on your grieveous'?
The acceleration values. They should be 10.4/10.4/5.2 which is twice of a Tie Interceptor or Advanced.
Yeah, those are the numbers. But I'm telling you my impressions, I realize my impression doesn't match what has been stated, and I feel like an idiot posting this. But to me, it feels like a dunelizard, not a Tie Adv.
Kirsha
Ducimus
Thu May 12, 2005 1:52 pm
#115
>>Ship chassis does not currently indicate maximum rate of turn. The acceleration is determined by chassis, which affects how a ship handles, but, the rate of turn is limited by the engine component. What you're talking about hasn't been in play for month
>>
Thats as far as im reading right there.
Lets rewind to flight geometry as applied to JTL 101.
A turn consists of rate and radius.
Turn Radius, determind by engine, defines how large or small a turn circle you can make (at corner velocity)
Turn rate, determined by the chassis dictates how fast you can traverse that turn circle.
Corner velocity, where you can turn at the smallest possible radius with the fastest possible rate.
It's always been in play, Get with the program.
All sony did was move the location of the Turn Rate(acceleration) to the chassis instead of having both rate and radius on the engine like it was before.
My statement stands firm, no ship should have high mass AND have high manuverblity (YPR rates)
>>
Thats as far as im reading right there.
Lets rewind to flight geometry as applied to JTL 101.
A turn consists of rate and radius.
Turn Radius, determind by engine, defines how large or small a turn circle you can make (at corner velocity)
Turn rate, determined by the chassis dictates how fast you can traverse that turn circle.
Corner velocity, where you can turn at the smallest possible radius with the fastest possible rate.
It's always been in play, Get with the program.
All sony did was move the location of the Turn Rate(acceleration) to the chassis instead of having both rate and radius on the engine like it was before.
My statement stands firm, no ship should have high mass AND have high manuverblity (YPR rates)
Vegitaa
Thu May 12, 2005 2:58 pm
#116
alyris wrote:
Kitten_Starsider wrote:
Can you post the chassis stats on your grieveous'?
The acceleration values. They should be 10.4/10.4/5.2 which is twice of a Tie Interceptor or Advanced.
Yeah, those are the numbers. But I'm telling you my impressions, I realize my impression doesn't match what has been stated, and I feel like an idiot posting this. But to me, it feels like a dunelizard, not a Tie Adv.
Kirsha
You're new from the looks of it, never... NEVER let yourself feel like an idiot posting your observations. Most the opinions in here are coming from people who have multiple ace badges and have spent most waking moments in space since JTL launched. We have pre-nerf components, high end gear, and a lot of experience.
It's very possible that with your current gear it may feel sluggish, but if I gave you a high-end re-engineered cert8 engine.. you'd see the difference.
/salute
warpish
Fri May 13, 2005 12:02 am
#117
>NO SHIP SHOULD EVER HAVE HIGH MASS WITH HIGH YPR. Period. That in ,
>and of itself, lacks any trade off. How it worked in the past, and how it should
>work now is:
>
>High mass = low YPR
>Mediem mass = mediem YPR
>Low mass = High YPR
>
>Thats a trade off that was, and should be JTL, these new clone fighters break
>
>High mass = low YPR
>Mediem mass = mediem YPR
>Low mass = High YPR
>
>Thats a trade off that was, and should be JTL, these new clone fighters break
>this sytem of balancing badly (yes some devations were to be expected to make
>them cool, but not to the extreme that they are).
>
>I dont see how anyone can justify these new ships by any stretch of the imagination.
>
>I dont see how anyone can justify these new ships by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm sorry, I thought we were playing post JTL beta.
Ship chassis does not currently indicate maximum rate of turn. The acceleration is determined by chassis, which affects how a ship handles, but, the rate of turn is limited by the engine component. What you're talking about hasn't been in play for months. Dealing with the existing game system with reward, loot, and crafted engines is our reality and the reality of anyone who wants to join JTL at the moment. Every one of you who agreed this is the way it is are incorrect.
Unfortunately, the design of JTL favored Re-Engineered loot components far to heavily and the most offending reason for this was mass. There was absolutely no chance a crafted component with maximum resources could be crafted to have performance near that of typical loot components (let alone RE'd items) and be anywhere near that range of mass (of typical loot). Now, with high mass fighters, this limitation can be overcome where previously it was definitely impossible.
I designed a mass 20k Tie with the same firepower, armor, shields as a 65k Tie Advanced with the sole exception of the top speed. The 20k Tie could do 89 base speed, while the 65k Tie Advaned was 105-106 base speed. Sad thing was the 20k Tie was actually a better turn fighter than the 65k Tie because experimental points had to go to reducing the energy maintenance on the Mk 5 starfighter engine of the 65k Tie, while those same expermental points went toward improving the YPR on the 20k. So for a difference of 16 speed, the larger TIE used up 45k additional mass in reactor and engine displacement and ended up turning worse (all crafted components and identical aside from reactor/engine). Think about that. Mass was entirely too limiting. Don't think of it as TIE and TIE-Advanced, those were single gun 20k mass and 65k mass ship designs. Faction didn't matter. The mass limitations were very harsh considering a Mk5 starfighter engine has to be crafted from a Master Shipwright.
If requiring reward RE'd components means these new 'heavies' are overpowered you're missing the big picture. Components, not ship chassis, determine YPR (in particular the Engine component).
Lets go with a contrasting design to your example
Starfighter Engine Mk3 w/overdriver
Reactor Mk 4 w/overcharger
Projectile Mk 5 w/any upgrade
Shield Mk 3 (or other 6k shield)
Image Rec-2 launcher
Micro-Chaff countermeasures
nominal booster
nominal capacitor
nominal droid interface
Armor Mk 3 w/reinforcement panels
Armor Mk 3 w/reinforcement panels
2.5k power remaining for WO4 (should WO3 ever be fixed, this is more than 100% suplus in gun energy maintenance)
Base speed of 89, plenty of experimentation pts for YPR (Should they ever be improved), Armor that is slightly weaker than shields (a balanced defense), same missile launcher, a Bigger Projectile Gun. 100% crafted. So, trade a little speed, shields, and YPR for bigger gun, better armor, better countermeasures,and entirely disposable. There is still power to spare for an honest WO4 with a Mk 5 projectile.
I don't have trouble imagining alternatives.
The increased mass makes these alternatives possible.
I agree that the reward ROTW ships are overpowered, but, given the current component mismatches for design, the higher mass was clearly necessary and creates viability where none existed before (for crafted, easy to replace, components).