Unlisted Ship Differences?

[D-Rail]

I asked this in multiplayer and couldn't get an answer, hopefully this will be more fruitful. I would like to thank En4cer for attempting to answer in game though.

Basically, I'm curious, given the same equipment are any other ships stronger than the others aside from AGI/Armor. What sparks this question is 2 things, of course, I want the beefiest ship with the most firepower for one. The other is I've noticed that some ships seem beefier even though they are lower ranked on paper. For instance, I was in a mission that had different ships, but I had noted that the Starmaster, supposedly the beefiest ship, went down in 2 seconds, whereas a Hunter withstood quite a bit more firepower.

Why is this? Does the AI have different equipment like we do? Did this Starmaster have no upgrades whereas the Hunter was fully upgraded? I'm not sure how the AI ships work but on paper, it seems that would have to be the case.

I'm in a decked out Chimera but it still seems like there are beefier ships out there. Does AGI affect damage taken/damage done? Are there hidden stats that aren't visible in the game? I've looked at all the stats on paper and it seems obvious but in practice there seems to be hidden variables.

[Marvin]

Look here: http://evochron.junholt.se/objectdescri ... object.htm

And of course different AI fly differently configured ships ... just press the V key a couple times and cycle through the targets to see.

[D-Rail]

Look here: http://evochron.junholt.se/objectdescri ... object.htm

And of course different AI fly differently configured ships ... just press the V key a couple times and cycle through the targets to see.

I read that already Marvin, I even stated that in my post that I've read the stats on paper. Thanks though.

I know that they fly different ships, just wasn't sure what equipment would make a Hunter so much beefier than a Starmaster and why is this Starmaster running around with bs equipment when the Hunter can take a hit.

I really just want to make sure I'm flying what I should be for what kind of ship I want. Just making sure that what's on paper is all there is to it. Someone already stated that different ships have different shield strengths and that strength really isn't quantified anywhere except for the description mentioning that suchandsuch has better armor or shields, but if most of the descriptions say that the only logical explanation is that each ship on the totem pole is beefier than the last, but it doesn't seem that way in practice.

[Marvin]

Space ships are like automobiles ... you can buy the stripped down version or one with all the extras. Or anything in between. Take a look at that "paper" again. Pay special attention to the shields and shield boosts and repair systems ... all of which cost extra. Not to mention the performance level of the crew you might hire if you're flying a civilian ship. All that stuff makes a big difference in how a ship can take a hit and recover.

[D-Rail]

Space ships are like automobiles ... you can buy the stripped down version or one with all the extras. Or anything in between. Take a look at that "paper" again. Pay special attention to the shields and shield boosts and repair systems ... all of which cost extra. Not to mention the performance level of the crew you might hire if you're flying a civilian ship. All that stuff makes a big difference in how a ship can take a hit and recover.

Maybe I'll rephrase. I'm in a Chimera with all the bells and whistles. In practice it seems like there may be something out there that's beefier due to the tankiness of some ships compared to what I experience being hit. On paper though, it seems as if the Chimera with all the proper equipment should be the one.

Answer I'm looking for really is: Yes, there are differences besides what is listed, _______ is what it is. No, there aren't any differences besides what is listed, what you see is what you get.

If I'm still being misunderstood, just nevermind it. Thanks Marvin.

[Edited on 8-22-2012 by D-Rail]

[EN4CER]

Marvin your charts are extremely informative and usually enough to base sound decisions on but I agree that there seems to be something missing or a hidden statistic that we're not able to divulge. Also the wing and engine system is a bit confusing.

At first I thought wings/agility just increased your turn rate. It looks like they do a lot more than that but it's hard to explain. For instance your strafe jets work better with a higher agility and I think but I'm not positive that even a full speed 'turn' with afterburners and strafe jets all engaged happens A LOT faster.

Same goes for engines and thrust. Does thrust only effect non afterburner jets? Will a good thrust help me turn using my strafe jets? Yes the 'statistics' are listed but some of them are as clear as mud without a lot of clarification. By far the best thing to do is to just slap them on your ship and try them out. I thought 13 wings were awesome but it looks like they're only needed if you fly something with low agility out of the box.

I could be totally misunderstanding some of this as well. We can all agree that some of it is confusing

[-splosives-]

One of the most important factors is actually totally missing on the frame specifics.
The shield core.
Even though 2 civ ships have a level 10 shield and a shield boost x5, the shields still differ strongly from frame to frame, same goes for military frames.
Most people might say the starmaster is the toughest civil frame with it's 300 armor, but in reality a Leviathan is a lot tougher due to it's better shields.
Shields are more important than hull. A ship with better shields makes for a much tougher ship than one with more hull.

I never actually got any written proof for this, but my experience in combat has sort of proven this as fact.

Enforcer is also right about the agility. a lighter ship not only turns faster, but also accelerates faster than a heavy ship. This was also proven by countless pvp matches against different frame types.

[Marvin]

By far the best thing to do is to just slap them on your ship and try them out. I thought 13 wings were awesome but it looks like they're only needed if you fly something with low agility out of the box.

As indicated in the Wing Enhancement Chart. For ships with a fast turn rate (basic agility), better wings do little to increase turn rate. Whereas ships with about a 30 agility rating benefit greatly from a better class wing.



But I agree, you should test drive every ship to see which one works best for you. And, as for the AI ... well, no secret there. Some of them are just much better pilots. But, unfortunately, there's no way to quantify situation awareness and golden hands on a piece of paper.

[EN4CER]

Ahhh touche Marvin!

[Busch]

According to what I've managed to collect over the years, the better the wing set installed, the better the thrust package available. Now, in any "turn" or change of heading, the thrusters do come into play. They may also be utilized in IDS full-power on maneuvering. How much and/or which of the thuster set is actually employed/deployed is fairly much up to the game software package, and not so much scaleable by the individual pilot. Inertial maneuvering is where the thruster set really comes into it's own, as you may have found (either PvP, or against AI/NPC craft). Now, what I have put together is that the AI/NPC peeps have much the same equipment as you're able to access, with one major exception. They can't self-repair - ever. I've found this to be true of the "normal" Guilders and Rebs, as well as the Vonari drelgs. You may factor this in to the equation too.

Each civilian ship/frame type, from the Talon/Arrow to the Leviathan/Starmaster, have a increased shield and power cores built into the frame itself, as you ascend the "frame ladder". [Or descend, for what it's worth ] Or at least that's what the documentation reveals. And, I've found it to be true in application. There's one other dichotomy to illustrate, and that is the differing abilities between the Federation-class and the Alliance-class ships frames. Obviously dissimilar, but with many points in common. I've found the armor may be increased in the Fed-class, but seems to "work better" in the Alliance-class frames, almost without regard to frame type. And, I'll admit that I've found the Fed-class to be a touch more responsive in maneuvering abilities as well, almost regardless of wing-set. I've been having a lot of fun with the Guardian/Renegade-class, as well as the Hunter/Sentinel-class frames. And, I've also been trading off my primary weapons suite in order to accommodate the weapons/shield power bias, per frame/shield/power availability. Still kicking booty and taking dog tags! I've also found that a stripped-down and pimped-up Starmaster with an Engineer and Weapons Officer aboard is pretty hard to beat, as long as one keeps one's wits about them.

One of the truely amazing features of this game/sim is the outrageous ability to morph your ship at whim. "Pimp my Ride!"

[D-Rail]

Thank you En4cer and splosives. That's the sort of information I was looking for, I realize the question could be a tough one but I'm glad you understood and see what I'm seeing.

I tried out an Evoch-E today and I must say I was surprised at what a difference the agility makes with dogfighting. Sure, it's not as beefy as the Chimera, but I found I was able to stick to targets easier because it turns on a dime, which actually in turn kept me alive equally or dare I say even better.

It'd be nice if we could get more information on this topic I brought up. I'd be really interested to know the unlisted differences between each ship frame. I'm actually glad you told me about what you noticed on the shielding of the Leviathan vs the Starmaster, splosives.

And Busch on that last bit, I agree, it's great to have the customizations available (on the civ ships anway). I just feel that it would be better if this stuff was quantified in numbers instead of a description just giving you the assumption that "this is better". The links that Marvin posted and the information that we have is great, but I feel in this case when we can fine tune our civ ships the way that we can, the numbers should be there for reference, even for the mil ships just so we can better make a decision based on our playstyle/abilities.

Granted, we could all just sit around and test for ourselves and make a decision, but I'm not much for writing these things down myself in a spreadsheet. I like to pick based on the specs, not write the specs myself and then pick, I want to just play the game.

[Edited on 8-22-2012 by D-Rail]

[-splosives-]

The problem is that these numbers are nowhere to be found, so all we can do is write down our own perception of what's better or worse.

[DaveK]

The problem is that these numbers are nowhere to be found, so all we can do is write down our own perception of what's better or worse.

part of the fun of the game (for some nerdy people, anyway) is finding the answers to some of these questions:

there is a very comprehensive Hints&Tips&Tutorial Guide plus a Mercenary Technical Manual, plus one of the stories in the Short Story Anthology that show the results of much research! (all three are available from SeeJay's website and are a couple of hundred pages each.)

the gist is:

a bigger engine just increases your max speed - it does NOT increase your acceleration (mil ships do accelerate quicker than civ ships); all civ ships accelerate at the same rate

with afterburner the max speed any ship can reach is around 7800mps

stats need reading with care: for example, favoured cannons used by many experienced pilots are the C2 IceSpear or C1 Flarebeam - the latter has a greater range but neither will every run out of energy in a fight - a well equipped ship can recharge them faster than they can use up energy. They can actually do more damage in combat than the C15 cannon you would tend to go for! Related is the fact that beam weapons are useless on their own: they give a marginal increase in damage rate when used in a combo but at a disproportionate increase in energy usage. I use particle cannon alone and would love to be able to fit two instead of one particle and one beam cannon

So suck it and see - which works best for you? The interaction between the various parameters you can play with when designing and equipping your ship can effect the performance of the basic frame greatly. If experimenting isn't your idea of fun, ask others what they recommend (though some myths, like big engine = faster acceleration) persist even with experienced pilots

[Edited on 23-8-2012 by DaveK]
edited due to content.

[Edited on 8-24-2012 by thetiebers]

[-splosives-]

all civ ships accelerate at the same rate
[Edited on 23-8-2012 by DaveK]

Not true, compare a talon with a leviathan, you'll feel the difference.
also all military ships vary in acceleration.

beam weapons are useless on their own: they give a marginal increase in damage rate when used in a combo but at a disproportionate increase in energy usage. I use particle cannon alone and would love to be able to fit two instead of one particle and one beam cannon

[Edited on 23-8-2012 by DaveK]

Beam weapons are in fact essential to penetrate shields. This is due to the fact that they damage all 4 shield directions simultaneously. without them it would be impossible to ever get through a person's shield due to augmentation (provided this person has a shield recharger and a decent frame).

[Busch]

IceSpear/Neodymium or the FlareBeam/Fusion combos have been some of the "most used" by some of us veterans, and even by some of the PvP'ers as well. Cyclic rates-of-fire, effective ranges, and total package delivery versus the power draw/power bias, are a few of the concerns in the mix-n-match. As these weapons are linked by default, the MDTS really aids in target acquisition and suppression. These are your "Primary Weapons", each complementary of each other in their specific applications. Lasers slice shields, particle cannons hammer the armored hull; missile use is dependant on the tactical situation need, skill of pilot, and replacement availability (if not Excals). You're not locked into any one frame type and equippage, not being led around by the nose, and your freedom to create is limited to what's currently available. There's still a lot you can do - it's all about what works best for you.

[-splosives-]

IceSpear/Neodymium or the FlareBeam/Fusion combos have been some of the "most used" by some of us veterans, and even by some of the PvP'ers as well.

The icespear actually isn't viable anymore in the most recent PvP metagame. You need all the range you can get. Also the fusion laser is accepted as the optimal beam weapon.

[DaveK]

all civ ships accelerate at the same rate
[Edited on 23-8-2012 by DaveK]

Not true, compare a talon with a leviathan, you'll feel the difference.
also all military ships vary in acceleration.

beam weapons are useless on their own: they give a marginal increase in damage rate when used in a combo but at a disproportionate increase in energy usage. I use particle cannon alone and would love to be able to fit two instead of one particle and one beam cannon

[Edited on 23-8-2012 by DaveK]

Beam weapons are in fact essential to penetrate shields. This is due to the fact that they damage all 4 shield directions simultaneously. without them it would be impossible to ever get through a person's shield due to augmentation (provided this person has a shield recharger and a decent frame).

Because the graphs have disappeared of the forum when my ISP changed my webspace I suggest you download the Mercenaries technical Guide from SeeJays website

http://evochron.junholt.se/menus/downloads.htm

and have a look at the data from pages 15-20 (engine performance) and from the same site download the Hint&Tips Guide and have a look at the data on pages 98 - 101 for weapons performance

I spent many a happy hour on MP collecting the data rather than listening to what experienced people said was true. The tests were based on:

• A fully stripped out Talon with a 2800 capacity fuel tank
• A lightly equipped Ferret with its maximum 400 capacity fuel tank
• A Leviathan with a 2000 capacity fuel tank
• A Chimera with a 2000 capacity fuel tank



Weapons: overall conclusion

Mil frames have better acceleration than civ frames but not ridiculously - they are faster and more manouverable "out of the box" but can't be modded - you have the engines, wings and shields you are given; civ ships can be optimised in the shipyard for what you want to do

You may or may not agree with the following points - that's all part of the fun of the game!  a beam weapon by itself is not worth using - it is slow to kill or is unable to kill at all (at least if your opponent has a C3 Repair Unit installed  a beam weapons doesn't just kill shields - it takes down the hull at the same time  all three particle canon won't run out of energy as long as the weapon/shield balance is even (0/0) or favours weapons.  The combo uses energy far more rapidly than you would expect from the rate of use of the canons used separately; However the combo does take down an opponent more quickly. If are not facing a large number of and can take down an opponent before you use up the energy reserve then a combo is effective - however you risk having to wait for the recharge.  Using the combo means that with MTLD active you will get beam hits all the time. However, beam weapons aren't very effective. Using the particle weapon along will let you fire longer, but not all your shots will hit. Whether you use a combo or just the particle cannon will depend on you proficiency and combat styles, as well as the number of opponents and whether they are AI or real When I started this bit of research I was fairly convinced by experience that beams were not "shield killers". I thought that when firing the combo most of the energy drain was due to the particle cannon. I suspected that there would be a clear cut conclusion that you dump the beam and save all the energy for the particle cannon, which would have taken some of the fun away from the game because weapon choice would be much simpler Instead I find that a beam alone is a waste of time, that particle alone can give unlimited fire time even with high class cannon and that a combo, though energy use intensive, is more destructive - there is still lots of choices to be made!! Finally - these tests were carried out between two stationary ships - combat is a whole different ball game, but at least now you have some hard data rather than just hearsay to base you decisions on!

Because I can't have two particle cannon instead of one particle and one beam I was tempted to drop the beam weapon until I found that I could programme my stick to fire particle alone and beam and particle together - I do most of my combat with particle weapons alone and the kill time is only a tiny bit longer than with both together - I NEVER run out of energy with particle alone, even firing non-stop

The moral is don't unthinkingly believe those who "know" what is true - collect the data (or at least look at it) and make your own conclusions!

As I said earlier - for me, finding out and testing myths is a big part of the fun!

[Marvin]

I spent many a happy hour on MP collecting the data rather than listening to what experienced people said was true. The tests were based on:

• A fully stripped out Talon with a 2800 capacity fuel tank
• A lightly equipped Ferret with its maximum 400 capacity fuel tank
• A Leviathan with a 2000 capacity fuel tank
• A Chimera with a 2000 capacity fuel tank

Now, that's my kind of testing. Objective (as opposed to subjective).

[-splosives-]

I've done some testing myself. Along with Hawkeye, I've tested inertial speed, IDS speed, afterburner speed and lateral speed with light and heavy frames. We raced a Shrike VS an Evoch-E, a Leviathan VS a Pulsar (same engines were used). and a leviathan VS a leviathan using class 1 and 10 engines.
All of our experiments resulted in differences in acceleration on all fronts.
Sometimes it took high speeds to see the difference, but it was definitely there!
Finally I know that all the myths that they used to tell us about engines and speed are false.



[Edited on 8-24-2012 by -splosives-]

[DaveK]

hmmmm - back to testing and data gathering! I'm interested in the detail. If I U2U you my email address would you send me your data? Pretty please!

[-splosives-]

It was difficult to measure exact numeric data in a race, but I can describe what I found out.
I also did solo experiments, they resulted in the same observations as you, but it was only when we raced for a prolonged time that we were able to see differences

[Marvin]

... but I can describe what I found out.

That would be subjective. Dave is rapidly becoming the "chart king" and would need hard data for objective analysis.

[-splosives-]

I have objective proof of what I tested. Just not all the exact numbers.
All I can say is that the speed difference of the two frames increased over time, and that one of us ended up way in front of the other. That's pretty objective isn't it?

[Marvin]

What was the start speed? How long did the run last? How far did you go? What was the difference between your distance and the other ship's distance at the end of the run? Difference in speed at the end? Which two ships were involved in the test and what equipment was installed on each?

[-splosives-]

Start speed 0, end speed 5000, speed difference depends on the specific frames, and what was tested: Sometimes 500 sometimes 1000 etc. Same for difference in distance. I already mentioned the ships we used. We didn't have timers to see how long it lasted. we didn't measure how far we went.