Best Ship in Evochron Renegades

Post by **Vice** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:17 pm

You'd have an exploration frame, a combat frame, a race frame, a miner frame ect. ect. Each subsequent level would be superior to the previous one. In the end, you'd end up with far more variety as no ship is superior.

Except, then you'd wind up with a bunch of tiers for each ship for each role without any real advantages or disadvantages at all (as you state). You'd just end up with a bunch of ships that can do one selected thing really well, nothing to distinguish them except their appearance. In short, a bunch of ships that can do any one thing that just look different. It brings them down to just being configured 'avatars' and not specific ships with specific traits.

with none of the ships being superior or inferior.

Is that really what you and anyone else would want? No ship being any different from another? Why work so hard to achieve a Leviathan, Centurion, or Renegade if you can just configure a small frame to do the same one thing at 1/10 the cost? Plus, several players have discovered the way to defeat a Leviathan in a medium frame (not even requiring working in pairs), greatly levelling the advantages. And I know 2 or 3 of them have realized what they discovered, because they can repeat it, hehe. My Leviathan has not provided me with complete dominance over the last two weeks of combat matches and multiplayer testing, that's for sure

And I am paying close attention to multiplayer games lately, especially discussions we've had while online as we try different tactics and practice combat. Certain balancing issues can be taken into consideration, but I'm not inclined to wildly change the rules of the game mid-stream without verifying potential side effects and how it may negatively impact players who enjoy the current setup. So interested players are welcome to join in the discussions and practices with combat being a main topic for ship design/benefits (including the issue to make the Leviathan even more of a slow lumbering cargo transporter and exploration ship).

Exeneva · Post by **Exeneva** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:33 pm

Originally posted by Vice
You'd have an exploration frame, a combat frame, a race frame, a miner frame ect. ect. Each subsequent level would be superior to the previous one. In the end, you'd end up with far more variety as no ship is superior.
Except, then you'd wind up with a bunch of tiers for each ship for each role without any real advantages or disadvantages at all (as you state). You'd just end up with a bunch of ships that can do one selected thing really well, nothing to distinguish them except their appearance. In short, a bunch of ships that can do any one thing that just look different. It brings them down to just being configured 'avatars' and not specific ships with specific traits.

with none of the ships being superior or inferior.
Is that really what you and anyone else would want? No ship being any different from another? Why work so hard to achieve a Leviathan, Centurion, or Renegade if you can just configure a small frame to do the same one thing at 1/10 the cost? Plus, several players have discovered the way to defeat a Leviathan in a medium frame (not even requiring working in pairs), greatly levelling the advantages. And I know 2 or 3 of them have realized what they discovered, because they can repeat it, hehe. My Leviathan has not provided me with complete dominance over the last two weeks of combat matches and multiplayer testing, that's for sure

And I am paying close attention to multiplayer games lately, especially discussions we've had while online as we try different tactics and practice combat. Certain balancing issues can be taken into consideration, but I'm not inclined to wildly change the rules of the game mid-stream without verifying potential side effects and how it may negatively impact players who enjoy the current setup. So interested players are welcome to join in the discussions and practices with combat being a main topic for ship design/benefits (including the issue to make the Leviathan even more of a slow lumbering cargo transporter and exploration ship).

Does this tactic to destroy Leviathans take into consideration the "Superman" technique?

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:57 pm

Originally posted by Vice
You'd have an exploration frame, a combat frame, a race frame, a miner frame ect. ect. Each subsequent level would be superior to the previous one. In the end, you'd end up with far more variety as no ship is superior.
Except, then you'd wind up with a bunch of tiers for each ship for each role without any real advantages or disadvantages at all (as you state). You'd just end up with a bunch of ships that can do one selected thing really well, nothing to distinguish them except their appearance. In short, a bunch of ships that can do any one thing that just look different. It brings them down to just being configured 'avatars' and not specific ships with specific traits.

with none of the ships being superior or inferior.
Is that really what you and anyone else would want? No ship being any different from another? Why work so hard to achieve a Leviathan, Centurion, or Renegade if you can just configure a small frame to do the same one thing at 1/10 the cost? Plus, several players have discovered the way to defeat a Leviathan in a medium frame (not even requiring working in pairs), greatly levelling the advantages. And I know 2 or 3 of them have realized what they discovered, because they can repeat it, hehe. My Leviathan has not provided me with complete dominance over the last two weeks of combat matches and multiplayer testing, that's for sure

And I am paying close attention to multiplayer games lately, especially discussions we've had while online as we try different tactics and practice combat. Certain balancing issues can be taken into consideration, but I'm not inclined to wildly change the rules of the game mid-stream without verifying potential side effects and how it may negatively impact players who enjoy the current setup. So interested players are welcome to join in the discussions and practices with combat being a main topic for ship design/benefits (including the issue to make the Leviathan even more of a slow lumbering cargo transporter and exploration ship).

You'd work hard to get a higher tier ship. As it is now, there's not a single advantage to not own a Leviathan. I'll go into it later - I'm not at home.

Post by **Vice** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:59 pm

You'd work hard to get a higher tier ship.

Ok, without any superiority or inferiority for any ship. Sounds like you'd take away all motiviation to get something better once you reach the top tier anyway, with the only difference being how they look... flying 'avatars' essentially.

As it is now, there's not a single advantage to not own a Leviathan.

Not a single one? Speed and maneuverability/agility don't count? Racing, missile evasion, spying, 'under the radar' trading...

Ok, let's put it to a vote, I am interested to know if other players want to see frames like the Leviathan 'nerfed' in the combat sense of making them easier targets to destroy. Here is the poll: http://www.starwraith.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3156

[Edited on 4-19-2008 by Vice]

Nigel_Strange · Post by **Nigel_Strange** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:19 pm

Certain balancing issues can be taken into consideration, but I'm not inclined to wildly change the rules of the game mid-stream without verifying potential side effects and how it may negatively impact players who enjoy the current setup.

Vice: I wish more game companies had this same philosophy. There's nothing more irritating than having the system change after you've spent a good long time developing a strategy to squeeze a small advantage out of that system. ArenaNet, for instance, is notorious for this. If anyone is familiar with Guild Wars, they know that pretty much every character class has gone through a Great Nerfage process whereby that class was neutered in order to make it less effective against the other classes.

Besides the inherent unfairness of changing the rules after the game has begun (can you imagine, in a football game, if we suddenly decided that the 30 yard line was good enough for a touchdown, just because one side was losing?), the philosophy is akin to shortening one leg of a three-legged stool. Once you shorten the errant leg, there's another one that's suddenly too long, so you shorten that one....and on and on until you have a platter on the floor, rather than a proper stool.

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:10 pm

Ok, without any superiority or inferiority for any ship. Sounds like you'd take away all motiviation to get something better once you reach the top tier anyway, with the only difference being how they look... flying 'avatars' essentially.

That's the same as it is now. The only difference now is that everyone flies Leviathan for combat, the fastest ship for racing and so on and on. Not even 'avatars' you get bound to, but more like disposable temporary things. In the tiered system, you'd not go past the top 'tier' (which now is the Leviathan), but instead focus on getting the ship best fitted to you, while maintaining the sense of progress through the tiers and upgrades to your ship.

Nerfing is important to keeping games balanced.

[Edited on 20-4-2008 by tha_rami]

Post by **Vice** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:05 pm

That just isn't (and wasn't) reflected in the feedback I gathered over the last few years though. Most players want high end ships to be, well, high end. They want something to work toward and earn (and they want that thing to earn to be well defined). The whole reason the current system (increasing capability frames with component configuration for roles) exists in the first place is because that is what they (including myself) wanted. The only reason any element of 'disposable' exists is because you are forced to change/customize your frame if you want the benefits of that frame, you can't just stick with one frame type and 'tier it up' to make it the same 'uber ship' as the high end 'uber ship'. If you want to be able to make any frame to fill any role equally as well, what is the end benefit? Just to say one ship is visually different from another? Isn't that reducing ship design down to avatars? I mean, when you see a Leviathan approaching, you know you are up against a defensively powerful opponent and you know you will have to take a different tactical approach to it than you would a Raven. That to me, gives some substantial gameplay benefits for decision making and strategy. If ships are all generally equal and just get biased toward one role or the other, you're losing the traits needed to make those quick decisions and you're losing the benefits/incentive of working toward a higher goal in the game, even if just to discover what's out there, then later returning to other configurations. I'd argue that the requirement of discernment for ship frame types gives them unique attributes that has little to do with 'flying avatars', equal ship frames using tiers would be far closer to an avatar condition.

Exeneva · Post by **Exeneva** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:35 pm

Nerfing isn't needed if the system is designed right.

I think that each frame should have a set of base stats, which would make each ship unique. Then, for each frame, there could be a class system, such as Striker Class A, Striker Class B, etc. with each class having an upgrade to the base stats but without deviating from the characteristics of the class. This would solve the tier system, with each frame type having its own top tier instead of having a single frame be the top tier.

Post by **Vice** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Then, for each frame, there could be a class system, such as Striker Class A, Striker Class B, etc. with each class having an upgrade to the base stats but without deviating from the characteristics of the class.

Could you describe how you would upgrade the base stats without deviating from the characteristics of the class? Aren't the base stats what define that class? To much deviation (and it wouldn't take much) and you'd bring it into the 'base stats' of the next class of ship anyway. The component system lets you adjust the frame's overall design for particular roles, but not at the expense of exceeding the base design stats of the frame beyond the tolerances of other frames, overall in a general sense.

This would solve the tier system, with each frame type having its own top tier instead of having a single frame be the top tier.

That's actually what the component system is designed to do. It lets you 'tier' the ship in different areas, including improving it in multiple areas... but it does this without violating the core parameters of the frame's design.

[Edited on 4-20-2008 by Vice]

Exeneva · Post by **Exeneva** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:00 pm

I mean such as having a Striker Class A ship faster than a Centurion Class A ship. Then, for Class B ships, the Striker Class will get a slight increase in armor but will get more in speed, whereas the Centurion would get more in armor and less in speed. The Striker would eventually become a moderate ship with a good balance (actually, the Phoenix probably). The Talon frame, would be a pure speed ship at top tier, with a massive speed increase for the exchange in armor and cargo space.

Something similar to that.

[Edited on 4-20-2008 by Exeneva]

Post by **Vice** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:02 pm

What's to stop the player from doing that now with component selection as they design their ship?

Exeneva · Post by **Exeneva** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:15 pm

Maybe we should ditch the class system for each frame and allow each user to select a light, medium, or heavy frame for each frame type. I don't know, it's just that nerfing Leviathans will only make everyone switch to Centurion.

Post by **Vice** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:57 pm

The nerfing would likely apply as a scale for all heavier frames, not just the Leviathan. Currently, there already are 'light'/'medium' and 'heavy' variants of the same frame. For example, the Talon and Pulsar are essentially the same frame, but the Pulsar is the heavier version of it with slightly less speed and agility in favor of more armor and defenses. The same is true for the Saber and Raven, Striker and Phoenix, Hunter and Renegade, and Centurion and Leviathan. Each frame type is rated on its assembly, agility, and armor. So each main frame is divided as you describe already, from there, the player can configure their design to line up with the role priorities they want to apply (more speed, more shields, more cargo, more fuel capacity, and more agility at the expense of other areas). Labelling is one thing, but much of what you're describing is already available in the game.

[Edited on 4-21-2008 by Vice]

Exeneva · Post by **Exeneva** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:11 am

In that case, I see nothing wrong with the current system.

Tpol · Post by **Tpol** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:47 pm

Being so newbie that I probably shouldn't voice an opinion here yet, I'll take the plunge and voice my 2 credits.

When a bunch of us jumps into a server and dogfights, the newbies are totally squashed by the seasoned vets. It's not only that the vets are far more skilled at dogfighting in this game, but they command Leviathans or some other high-level, highly outfitted ship. Newbies are bugs on the windshield, lol.

It'd be nice for a newbie to be able to see if their dogfighting skills are getting better on a level playing field with experienced players. And I kind of think that's where the frustration of some of this thread is coming from.

So, I was thinking, how about a "stock craft" dogfighting night? Everyone meets in a server with a totally stock vehicle, and dogfights around the Sapphire station. It would be a thrill for newbies and fun for everyone. Totally level playing field with only flight and fighting skills in play.

Just a thought.

Tpol

[Edited on 4-21-2008 by Tpol]

Post by **Vice** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:16 pm

So, I was thinking, how about a "stock craft" dogfighting night? Everyone meets in a server with a totally stock vehicle, and dogfights around the Sapphire station. It would be a thrill for newbies and fun for everyone. Totally level playing field with only flight and fighting skills in play.

That would be a good option. Much like we often set up matches with guns only, we could pick a frame to use as well. For light and fast combat, use Ravens as the standard frame, for heavier combat, Phoenix or something. Players could simply save their profile in a different slot during the game, then change their ship as needed for the match.

BraveHart · Post by **BraveHart** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:36 pm

Good option indeed...it would be a lot of fun zipping around in a fast ship...Bug on Bug...LoL

, Count me in on the fun!! Saving in a slot for just such a purpose is the best way to go...Good suggestion Tpol..

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:09 pm

I agree it would level the playing field for newbies et al, but correct me if I'm wrong, I see problems.
How would this affect players stat's? Would a player have to give up the ship he has worked so hard for just to play MP? If it only affects MP, how would it affect "joint missions"? What would be the point of going on a dangerous joint mission with a basic ship?
If you make this an "elective" decision among players like "guns only", then there's no reason to modify the game as this could be agreed on by all players before hand.
If you set it up so that the host sets the game limits, that might be plausible, but still, there would be players who do not wish to give up their hard won ships.
If you give this idea 5 miutes of a logical process, you might see other possible problems.

Post by **Vice** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:44 pm

How would this affect players stat's? Would a player have to give up the ship he has worked so hard for just to play MP?

Wouldn't really effect their stats, since it would just be a temporary condition for PvP multiplayer gameplay... obviously optional. You wouldn't really be giving anything up, you'd just be switching ships to an agreed frame before combat begins (remember, there is a no-loss ship switching system). Just reload the other saved profile or switch back to your original ship when you're done.

If it only affects MP, how would it affect "joint missions"? What would be the point of going on a dangerous joint mission with a basic ship?

As I understand, this would be for PvP combat matches, not cooperative contracts. But it's freeform

So whatever you want to do for ship configurations for whatever objectives you want to complete, go for it. Switch to whatever you want to use at any time.

If you make this an "elective" decision among players like "guns only", then there's no reason to modify the game as this could be agreed on by all players before hand.

Completely elective.

CS-ACI- · Post by **CS-ACI-** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:18 pm

Hello,

The Wolf Zone was designed with a station at the start with this in mind. The station can be used to swap frames up or down ( if you have the credits ).

You got throught the wormhole to get there, goto the station and configure your ship for battle. When the battle session is over, return to the station and re-configure your ship the way you want it.

Steve

Exeneva · Post by **Exeneva** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:37 pm

Originally posted by Vice
So, I was thinking, how about a "stock craft" dogfighting night? Everyone meets in a server with a totally stock vehicle, and dogfights around the Sapphire station. It would be a thrill for newbies and fun for everyone. Totally level playing field with only flight and fighting skills in play.
That would be a good option. Much like we often set up matches with guns only, we could pick a frame to use as well. For light and fast combat, use Ravens as the standard frame, for heavier combat, Phoenix or something. Players could simply save their profile in a different slot during the game, then change their ship as needed for the match.

This is why I feel that it would be easier if we could save ship configurations within the profile, instead of saving new and different profiles.

This way, we can help to level the playing field and put skill over wealth when it comes to multiplayer.

Post by **Vice** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:53 pm

It's really not that hard to change them during the game at all. Plus, even if you saved templates, you'd still have to switch them at stations that support them. For many configurations, all you have to do is drag and drop the frame you want, then swap one or two components (you'd likely waste just as much time, if not more, trying to open and select a template from a save menu). If that is too much work, then just use different profile slots.

Tpol · Post by **Tpol** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:34 pm

I wasn't thinking of messing with our main game identities. Just in an empty playing slot, put in your name with like B at the end for Basic, e.g. mine would be TpolB and go into multiplayer.

I'd have totally a scratch game, no modifications at all, be completely back to square one, fresh new basic ship.

If we all did this, then we'd spawn at Sapphire, and could dogfight around Sapphire. After all, we'd have very little money and no good jump drives or anything.

Like Braveheart called it, bug -on- bug combat, lol.

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:55 am

I must be missing something! If this is an "elective" option and it requires having more than one pilot profile than it would definately affect stats. or, at least, would require the creation and maintaining of multiple pilot profiles with different stats.
What would be necessary... a pilot profile for every frame there is? That might require a lot of flight time in each profile in order to acquire enough credits to be competitive in each frame. The only other possibility would be having enough cash to sell your hard earned rig to buy some less elaborate set-up, then buy back your big rig if it still exists at the station you sold it.
Like I said, I must be "missing something"!

Post by **Vice** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:12 am

You just copy/save your profile to other slots, then adjust as desired. And you don't effect the stats of the original.

You don't have to manage multiple profiles if you don't want to, that is only one option. The choice is up to you.