Okay that is a good point...

But, slower LRFs are only going to help LFs...now, that is a good thing and something we probably want...but it doesn't do capital ships much good...if anything, it makes kiting even more effective and more important...caps can run away easier but they can't really stick it in a fight much longer...

LRFs either need to be less effective against capital ships or less effective against other things so that large amounts of them are huge liabiliites....

If LRFs were not nearly as good against HCs and Heavy Armor, then large amounts of them could be very risky...sure, they're great cap killers but they would come at a great price, mainly that you're fleet wouldn't be as effective...

Not sure if it's the way to go, but making LRFs much worse against HCs and/or Heavy armor could indirectly give us exactly what we want...

I think that this is a little extreme. Reducing LRFs to 400 will make them substantially slower than every other unit in th game, including carrier cruisers. They maybe able to be reduced to the speed of carrier cruisers (450) but no lower than that. If that is still not enough for capital ships to disengage easily, I think we buff capital ships more, not nerf LRFs further (who are already taking a beating here).

I propose decreasing LF damage vs all but carriers. Add a passive that increases damage vs Militia to compensate.  Decrease LRF damage vs Cobalts to 100%. 

Carriers, Flak, and Support all have the same armor type...you can't reduce the effectiveness of LRFs vs just one unless you changed the armor type of carriers (which would affect a lot of things)...

We're having a bit of a problem here because there is virtually no agreement...

The problem with LRFs is that they are damn good at killing just about everything...

Something has to give...

LFs are what is supposed to be used to counter flak, support, and carriers...that is how the game was made and intended to be played...that fell apart because LRFs are very good at killing heavy armor (2nd only to LFs) and are the hardest counter against LFs...

The issue isn't that LRFs are too powerful against caps... the issue is that LRFs have many advantages and few weaknesses...fighters are easily shot down by flak...HCs are too vulnerable to bombers and LRFs are better than HCs against pretty much everything else...

Reducing the damage LRFs do against caps won't solve the problem...as Darvin has said, all it will do is raise the threshold of how many LRFs are needed to kill a cap almost instantly...the core of the issue is the abundance of LRFs on the battlefield...reducing the amount of LRFs on the battlefield is the solution...

How do we do that?  Make LRFs weaker against things they aren't meant to fight...LRFs are supposed to counter LFs, and LFs are supposed to counter heavy armor...HCs are supposed to be good against LFs and LRFs and heavy armor, but have the unique weakness of being the most susceptible to bombers....

The solution to our problem is making LRFs weaker against heavy armor and HCs...massive amounts of LRF will no longer be viable because carriers, flak, and HCs will be too hard to kill with just LRFs...players will have to build more HCs and LFs in order to deal with other HCs and heavy armor...if vast numbers of LRFs become a suicidal fleet composition, then players won't go for it and instead will go for a more diverse fleet which is exactly what we want...

I would like to post these two tables so everyone can see them and have something to reference...the first table is for TEC and the second table is for Advent (Vasari are a pain because of PMs, but we have enough info for this point with just TEC and Advent)...these values represent DPS per fleet supply point, so you can compare these values perfectly with each other...

DPS of one ship (1 Squadron for SC) per fleet supply point against particular armor type
TEC	Garda Flak	Fighter	LRM	Cobalt	Bomber	Ogrov	Kodiak
Capital	1.91667	0.69643	2.06250	0.95000	1.76190	1.87500	1.35000
Very Light	5.11110	1.39286	2.75000	1.90000	1.17460	0.46875	1.80000
Light	2.87500	2.78571	2.75000	1.42500	1.17460	0.46875	2.70000
Medium	1.91667	0.69643	3.66666	1.90000	1.17460	0.93750	2.25000
Heavy	1.91667	0.69643	2.06250	2.85000	1.17460	1.40625	1.80000
Very Heavy	1.91667	0.69643	2.06250	0.95000	2.34921	1.87500	1.80000
Module	1.34167	0.48750	1.37500	0.95000	1.52698	3.75000	1.35000

 

DPS of one ship (1 Squadron for SC) per fleet supply point against particular armor type
Advent	Defense	Fighter	Illuminator	Disciple	Bomber	Adjudicator	Destra
Capital	2.25000	0.90000	2.07692	1.06250	2.00725	0.83333	1.42500
Very Light	5.99999	1.80000	2.76923	2.12500	1.33817	0.20833	1.90000
Light	3.37500	3.60000	2.76923	1.59375	1.33817	0.20833	2.85000
Medium	2.25000	0.90000	3.69230	2.12500	1.33817	0.41667	2.37500
Heavy	2.25000	0.90000	2.07692	3.18750	1.33817	0.62500	1.90000
Very Heavy	2.25000	0.90000	2.07692	1.06250	2.67633	0.83333	1.90000
Module	1.57500	0.63000	1.38462	1.06250	1.73962	1.66667	1.42500

 

LRMs and Illuminators do almost identical DPS per fleet supply...

Destras are marginally more damaging to LRF than illuminators...illuminators actually do more damage against HCs than HCS!  Kodiaks are even worse off...

The really troubling issue is how effective LRFs are against heavy armor...while they will lose against flak (since flak have anti-light weaponry), they are 2nd only to LFs in taking down carriers and support ships...why build HCs when LRFs are better and easier to defend from SC?  Hell, even using flak is a terrible counter, because flak are more expensive per fleet supply point than LRFs or HCs and flak severely limits you're ability to FF...

Here is a table with armor values so everyone can see and have something to reference...

	Anti-Very Light	Anti-Light	Anti-Medium	Anti-Heavy	Anti-Very Heavy	Anti-Module	Composite	Capital
Capital	0.50000	0.50000	0.75000	0.50000	0.75000	1.00000	0.75000	1.00000
Very Light	1.33333	1.00000	1.00000	1.00000	0.50000	0.25000	1.00000	0.25000
Light	0.75000	2.00000	1.00000	0.75000	0.50000	0.25000	1.50000	0.75000
Medium	0.50000	0.50000	1.33333	1.00000	0.50000	0.50000	1.25000	1.00000
Heavy	0.50000	0.50000	0.75000	1.50000	0.50000	0.75000	1.00000	1.00000
Very Heavy	0.50000	0.50000	0.75000	0.50000	1.00000	1.00000	1.00000	1.00000
Module	0.35000	0.35000	0.50000	0.50000	0.65000	2.00000	0.75000	0.75000

It is my belief that LRFs and bombers are and should be counters to capital ships...the problem is that LRFs are good against just about everything...LRFs need to be weaker against heavy armor and HCs so that fleets heavy in LRFs simply are not practical...

First off, LRFs should not be better against HCs than HCs are against HCs...

Illuminators and LRMs do about 2 DPS per fleet supply against HCs while Kodiaks and Destras do 1.8/1.9 DPS per fleet supply against HCs...I suggest Anti-medium's effectiveness against very heavy armor be changed from .75 to .55...that is a 27% decrease in effectiveness and will mean illums/LRMs will do about 1.47 DPS per fleet supply against HCs instead of 2...

Second, LRFs should not be better against heavy armor than HCs...

Illuminators and LRFMs do the same damage to HCs as the do against heavy armor, which is about 2 DPS per fleet supply...kodiaks and destras only do 1.8/1.9...I suggest Anti-medium's effectiveness against heavy armor be changed from .75 to .60...that is a 20% decrease in effectiveness against flak/carrier/support...Illums and LRMs will now do about 1.6 DPS per fleet supply against heavy armor instead of 2...I don't think this should be the same or lower than the value against HCs since flak have anti-light weaponry...

So, to sum it all up...

Anti-mediums effectiveness against very heavy armor (HCs) changed from .75 to .55....effectiveness against heavy armor (carrier/flak/support) changed from .75 to .60...

Let LRFs be just as effective against caps...you wanna kill caps with lots of LRFs, you go right ahead, but your fleet will then be very vulnerable...

Pending on how this goes over, I think it may be wise to give the skirmisher a slight buff to DPS...

 

 

This is where I disagree; the speed difference between capital ships and LRF is currently quite slight.  By increasing this margin, long range frigates will fall behind quite quickly in a chase scenario.  Right now, they keep up for long enough to do the job, but with a substantial speed difference they will fall behind rather quickly.

The point of this, as I mentioned earlier, is that you can begin your retreat later.  Right now, you need to have fully accelerated away from the LRF by the time they get in range.  This change would mean you'd be able to take a few volleys but then get to breaking distance pretty quickly.



Sure, still gets the job done.




I think the way around this is actually to make it more difficult for the LRF to stay on target.  If you can't keep up with capital ships as easily, they can't effectively chase.  Still capital ship killers, but now you have a fair chance at evading them.


I'm still all for this solution; this is a buff to heavies since their move speed will be better relative to LRF, a buff to LF since LRF can no longer support or chase kiting units, and a buff to capital ships since LRF can no longer keep up with their agility.  I strongly believe the best solution we have currently is move speed.

I don't think move speed is a wrong answer (regardless of what else is done, LRF speed should probably be reduced)...the problem is, the units are still going to be just as damaging...if you actually want to fight your enemy (which you'll eventually have to do) you will have to face LRFs...even if their speed is decreased, it is not the only issue with LRFs...they are still too powerful, and reducing their effectiveness against heavy and very heavy armor is going to help...

Yeah, you won't have to retreat your caps as soon if the enemy fleet is at the center of their gravity well, but if they're even close to the edge then LRFs are still going to be able to snipe a cap ship, and with even mid-size fleets you won't be able to throw capital ships at the front line...

If the only change we make is lower LRF speed, I think all we're going to do is change tactics, not fleet composition...people will still kite (and have more incentive to do so since it will be easier) because LRFs will still be fatal to caps, just slower...

This is my solution at its heart.  We make fleet tactics change in such a way that it's easier to keep capital ships alive.  The reason I like it so much is that your ability to quickly take down capital ships is unchanged if they sit still, preventing something like a double-Vulkoras rush from simply clearing your homeworld with impunity,

This is important, I agree...but if LRFs are less effective against heavy and very heavy armor, you still have cap killers (LRFs and bombers)...the thing is, you have to be much more careful about balancing your fleet with HCs and LFs...I think both diverse fleet composition and strengthening caps are important goals...

With slower LRF, you can't pursue kiting carriers anymore.  This does improve heavies and LF respectively.

Yes it will, I won't deny that...but it also empowers carriers and it makes your fleet composition a crap shoot...if I waltz into your planet with carriers and a ton of LRF, what are you going to do?  If you have LFs, my carriers hold ground...if you have LRFs, my carriers kite...either way, you lose...if you build a nice balanced fleet composition of flak, LRF, and LF, all I have to do is engage your fleet, and since LRF still dominant, again, you will likely lose...the only way you can win is if you build a bunch of carriers too, and force me into the same lose-lose situation...and I don't know if that's the route we want to go...

Nevertheless, I suppose it certainly won't hurt to try it, just see how it goes with the slower speed...

If I remember correctly, the numbers you suggested were 400 for LRMs/Kanraks and Illuminators were 500?  It won't be easy testing it with the AI since they don't retreat their caps and they don't spam LRFs (or FF very well)...but I'll give it a try and see what happens...

Unless someone can provide a replay with the proposed speed changes I can not see any way it will help.

 

All I can see is more Carrier kiting. Doesn help my poor Kol in mid-large fleet battle.

 

 

Im gonna say this here and else where in other balance topics:

 

I really really think we are over-complicating things. Here for example the game gives us the best tools to tweak over damaging units. Damage Modifiers! We need to KISS. Why change several things when all we need to do is change one thing?

 

Giving the LRF and Bomber a more specialized role against certain targets will promote better fleet diversity. Every other ship minus the HC has type of target is good at and thats it. Why cant LRF or Bombers be the same?!

 

We can change the game from he who has the most LRF/Bombers wins to he who has the better fleet diversity.

I agree...

Reducing LRF effectiveness against heavy and very heavy armor I think will do this...LFs are great against flak/support/carriers and are very fast...LRFs are good against LFs and also good at shooting capital ships...flak are good against LRFs and also can shoot SC...HCs are good against all 3 and caps but they aren't the best against any one thing and are the most vulnerable to bombers...I'm not certain it is the best route, but it's the best I can come up with...

Yeah I would prefer just work with just the damage modifiers if possible. But if a whole unit type has to have a speed change, we should do it here. I don't mind doing it, I just want to be sure its worthwhile and if we decide to experiment, that we have enough people to do it with.

Also, it seems LRFs vs. Heavy get 0.75, which I think should be reduced to 0.6. I'm also thinking of further thinking of reducing LRFs vs. Heavy Cruisers to 0.55 (as after looking at the numbers, I think HC should be a kind of slow but hard counter to LRF) but reducing HC vs. LFs to 1.2 (from 1.5. which seems a little to high). Also, I noticed that LRFs only get 0.5 against structures, which I though was something they are actually supposed to counter, so maybe we should buff them to 0.65 (that will effect starbases but I'm hoping the other changes will make them less used).

I've suggested similar numbers to your own, though I have them flip flopped...the reason I did this was that flak has anti-light weaponry, so it is rather damaging to LRFs...

HCs only get 1.25 against LFs...I don't think that number should be lowered...if there is a problem with LFs still being to weak, I'd rather raise LFs effectiveness against HCs, not lower HCs effectiveness against LFs...I think it would be best to test changes to LRFs first though before changing HCs or LFs...

Right now I don't think LRFs need to be better against structures just yet...LRMs do more damage against structures than HCs, and are second only to ogrovs and bombers (which are intended for destroying structures)...it may be a necessary change later, but too many things changed at the same time will make it difficult to determine what works and what doesn't...

I do think LRFs need to be weakened against heavy and very heavy armor...values around .55 to .6 seem appropriate...the damage values between HCs and LFs as well as between LRFs and structures should probably be dealt with after initial changes are tested...

I would note that the damage multipliers associated with armor types are very deceiving...per fleet supply point LRFs do much more raw damage than HCs (2.75 vs 1.8 for TEC)...so, keep that in mind when looking at LRF damage multipliers....75% of 50% more damage is greater than 100% of the same damage (which is why LRFs are still adequate against HCs)...

Well, I think we've hit a brick wall on this issue.  I still think that move speed is the way to go (and that is a pretty simple solution), and if you want to mix in a few light armor changes on the side, go ahead.

I strongly believe that mixing up the move speed more is the best way to increase fleet diversity, capital ship survivability and to add depth to the game, all without messing around too much with counters. 

Heavy vs LRF isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be.  Really the only heavy that has problems is the Vasari Enforcer; the TEC and Advent varieties will defeat LRF.  I believe that if we knock down LRF speed so they're less flexible and maneuverable, then this will take many leaps towards balancing them.  Sure, they'd remain powerful against everything, but trivial to outmaneuver and evade. 

Anyways, move speed remains my vote.

I sympathize with this, though HCs are also easy to counter (bombers, which everyone builds in mass) and bombers can't be easily countered themselves...I believe the most prudent action would be to leave LRFs vs Very Heavy armor alone and see if speed and reduced effectiveness against heavy armor solve the issue...if not, we always have the option of making LRFs weaker against HCs...

I'd suggest anti-medium vs heavy bee changed from .75 to .55...

I'm going to try it out when I get a chance...I'll try the speed thing too, though that will be rather difficult to test with the AI...

I still think that the speed nerf is the most important change here, but you could still do this; LRF aren't really supposed to be nailing these unit types. 

In practice, a slower LRF won't get much chance to shoot at carriers, and smart players don't use them to attack flaks as it is, so this really only changes them against support cruisers, which is fine enough.

For testing purpose I think I will create a version with a bit of everything. However, I think that will push LRFs over the edge and some of the nerfs will have to go.

Also Darvin, another thing I don't really like about your move speed theory is that it seems to make Sins more of a click-fest, as it implies carriers will always be kitting and LF will always be chasing and LRFs will always be persuing. It is one thing to give Capital ships the speed to disengage, it is another to have to control every part of you fleet by speed type in big circles of counters chasing counters. But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and see if it works.

I'll make and release the update tomorrow (I'm too tired now) but I am certain we will need to go online to test this, and we will need players more skilled than me to really see how it works. We may as well use Project equilibrium v. 1.0 as well to see the capital ship ability changes in action at the same time.

That's a good comparison, but I think you should also consider DPS/cost, Hull/supply, and Hull/cost.

I calculated all of this in my own spreadsheet a couple weeks ago (modified from the excellent spreadsheet file made by SithLordAJ https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/379562/page/1/#2591482).. and I've been mulling over the numbers, trying to decide what's needed.

As I argued in the capital ships thread, I think a few small changes would be best if we just want to produce a balance mod (rather than some sort of re-imagining of the Sins gameplay/balance mechanics).

So far, I've still only made the changes to LRF and LF as mentioned previously..

i.e.,

***Antimedium vs caps from 0.75 to 0.65
***Antimedium vs heavy and very heavy, from 0.75 to 0.70
***Antiheavy vs very heavy, from 0.5 to 0.60
***Antiheavy vs caps from 0.5 to 0.55

I think that's a good start, but if people are still worried about bombers and/or LRF then I think some changes to bomber DPS or Flak accuracy might help.  Specifically, a small nerf to flak accuracy vs fighters would buff fighters vs LRF and bombers.  A small buff to flak accuracy vs bombers could also help. (No buffs to flak dmg vs bombers though, as this would make flak too good vs LRF and other light armor imo).  Lastly, I think the aforementioned idea of nerfing bomber DPS but buffing their HP could keep bombers useful but blunt their use in assasination.  I don't think we should nerf the bomber's anti very-heavy attack profile because the current setup (50% vs most, 100% vs HCs, 75% vs caps, 65% vs modules) seems about right to me in terms of ratios.

Ship Class	Faction	Total hull	Total dps	Total cost	hull per $	dps per $	hull per supply	dps per supply
Scout	Advent	865	2.43	200	4.33	0.012	432.50	1.21
Scout	TEC	647.5	2.56	200	3.24	0.013	323.75	1.28
Scout	Vasari	681.875	3.70	315	2.16	0.012	227.29	1.23
Scout	Pirate	1152	11.40	600	1.92	0.019	288.00	2.85
Light	Advent	917.5	8.50	430	2.13	0.020	229.38	2.13
Light	TEC	1068.5	9.50	547.5	1.95	0.017	213.70	1.90
Light	Vasari	1316	12.00	735	1.79	0.016	188.00	1.71
Long	Advent	1232	16.62	897.5	1.37	0.019	205.33	2.77
Long	TEC	805	11.00	590	1.36	0.019	201.25	2.75
Long	Vasari	1020	13.00	895	1.14	0.015	170.00	2.17
Antifighter	Advent	1383.75	18.00	630	2.20	0.029	345.94	4.50
Antifighter	TEC	1530	15.33	667.5	2.29	0.023	382.50	3.83
Antifighter	Vasari	1578.125	16.33	760	2.08	0.021	315.63	3.27
Antifighter	Pirate	1722.5	12.00	750	2.30	0.016	861.25	6.00
Siege	Advent	840.25	6.50	1372.5	0.61	0.005	70.02	0.54
Siege	TEC	816	6.50	1272.5	0.64	0.005	68.00	0.54
Siege	Vasari	807.5	6.40	1345	0.60	0.005	67.29	0.53
Siege	Pirate	1000.5	11.00	1300	0.77	0.008	83.38	0.92
Carrier	Advent	3067.5		3305	0.93		153.38
Carrier	TEC	2467		2117.5	1.17		176.21
Carrier	Vasari	2459		2160	1.14		175.64
Utility0	Advent	932.5	4.00	1120	0.83	0.004	233.13	1.00
Utility0	TEC	1142.5	4.00	807.5	1.41	0.005	190.42	0.67
Utility0	Vasari	990	4.50	1120	0.88	0.004	198.00	0.90
Utility1	Advent	2242.5	4.00	1560	1.44	0.003	320.36	0.57
Utility1	TEC	1216.25	4.00	710	1.71	0.006	304.06	1.00
Utility1	Vasari	1120	4.50	1395	0.80	0.003	160.00	0.64
Heavy	Advent	1774.375	19.00	1380	1.29	0.014	177.44	1.90
Heavy	TEC	1912.5	18.00	1265	1.51	0.014	191.25	1.80
Heavy	Vasari	2145.5	23.00	1795	1.20	0.013	178.79	1.92
Heavy	Pirate	2156	15.38	1200	1.80	0.013	359.33	2.56
Antimodule	Advent	1589	15.00	2467.5	0.64	0.006	88.28	0.83
Antimodule	TEC	935.5	22.50	1632.5	0.57	0.014	77.96	1.88
Antimodule	Pirate	1521	8.75	1300	1.17	0.007	217.29	1.25
Fighter	Advent	378	12.00	3305	0.11	0.004
Fighter	TEC	378	9.75	2117.5	0.18	0.005
Fighter	Vasari	391	10.25	2160	0.18	0.005
Bomber	Advent	551.25	17.84	3305	0.17	0.005
Bomber	TEC	550	16.44	2117.5	0.26	0.008
Bomber	Vasari	525	17.09	2160	0.24	0.008
Colony	Advent	1175	5.00	1187.5	0.99	0.004	167.86	0.71
Colony	TEC	1275	4.00	1125	1.13	0.004	212.50	0.67
Colony	Vasari	1225	5.00	1280	0.96	0.004	204.17	0.83
Carrier (fighters)	Advent	3067.5	36.00	3305	0.93	0.011	153.38	1.80
Carrier (fighters)	TEC	2467	19.50	2117.5	1.17	0.009	176.21	1.39
Carrier (fighters)	Vasari	2459	20.50	2160	1.14	0.009	175.64	1.46
Carrier (bombers)	Advent	3067.5	53.53	3305	0.93	0.016	153.38	2.68
Carrier (bombers)	TEC	2467	32.89	2117.5	1.17	0.016	176.21	2.35
Carrier (bombers)	Vasari	2459	34.18	2160	1.14	0.016	175.64	2.44

 

I'm sure there are other good ways to compare them, but this is what I've been looking at.  Note that it's a lot easier to digest all of this if you have some experience in excel so you can sort and auto color code things.  I think you should be able to copy/paste this table straight into excel (or some equivalent) if you want to manipulate the data a bit more.

Total hull = Hull*(1+(0.05*armor)))+shields  (I didn't account for regen)

DPS was just taken straight from SithLordAJ's chart.. I'm not 100% sure if it's correct (e.g., This value may underestimate the DPS for the Solanus starfish because I think the listed DPS is for only one target, and it can deliver that to 5 total.  Similarly, effective DPS goes up for units with Area of Effect attacks like the Javelis, and the frontal DPS for the illuminator is actually lower).

Total cost = Credits+(Metal*4.5)+(Crystal*4.5)  I know some disagree about the correct way to incorporate metal and crystal costs, but I used 4.5 because I think I saw Darvin arguing for that approach somewhere..

Fighter and bomber sections were adjusted by SC# per squadron.  The last two carrier sections were calculated for cruiser carriers with all fighters or all bombers, and their DPS was adjusted by number of squadrons.  (e.g., the Advent carrier's DPS for fighters was calculated as 3 squadrons x 9 fighters x 1.333 DPS per fighter).  

 

I also made additional columns (not shown) where I adjusted these values for the armor modifiers. (e.g., DPS/supply vs light armor or DPS/cost vs very heavy armor).  That makes it even easier to see the math underlying the cost-effectiveness of different counters.

If IIRC HCs are the most cost effective while flak are the least cost effective (must take into account it can't FF)...LRFs are somewhere in the middle...

HCs, however, are vulnerable to one of the most powerful units in the game (bombers), which is a huge drawback...

Unfortunately it's more than just hull that matters...some abilities (Missile Barrage) are more damaging against smaller but weaker units...other abilities (like Malice) that have target counts actually hurt fleets with larger numbers much less...then there is Time To Live and how efficient repair abilities can be used on ships of various  hull values, and then there is shield mitigation...its an important consideration but honestly it is very difficult to factor in...

Given the importance of FFing, I think analyzing firepower is the best approach...if you lose your starbase or capital ships, that is a huge loss even if your fleet is somewhat stronger than the enemy, and the support abilities you lose can mean the difference between a decisive victory and a close defeat....

I might also add that LRMs and Kanraks have abilities to increase their damage while HCs don't (Ruthlessness doesn't really count)...so when evaluating LRF damage, that also has to be taken into account...

Ultimately, this is how I see our efforts...we have 2 goals more or less...balance the game, and foster diversity...one goal is not necessarily dependent on the other, the game can be balanced without conceptual changes bringing diversity...

In general, the more we focus on diversity, the less consensus we have...the more we focus on balance, the more consensus we have...this issue of LRF vs caps and heavy armor and the like is one of diversity, not balance...

I really hate to be a pessimist here but we may not ever get changes anyone agrees on since this current discussion will change the game, not balance it...even if those changes are for the better (and I believe they will be), agreeing on them will be difficult...

That being said, there seems to be some agreement on weakening LRFs vs heavy armor and/or HCs...increasing the power of LFs is not an isolated opinion either...

To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone is going to be convinced of anything until some changes are tested...Darvin has the idea of reducing LRF speed, several people have various numbers they want to try...I think are best bet is for people to test the changes they like, and report their results...I for one will try to do some testing within the next two days so that I have a feel other the changes I'd prefer...maybe they'll be great, maybe they'll suck but I think testing various ideas is the only way we are going to get anywhere...

Version 0.2 (Experimental)

Antimedium vs. Heavy - 0.6 (from 0.75)

Antimedium vs. Capitalship - 0.6 (from 0.65)

Antimedium vs. Very Heavy - 0.55 (from 0.65)

Composite vs. Medium - 1.2 (from 1.25)

All Long Range Frigate max speed decreased to 450.

All Battleships max speed increased to 600.

All Colony Caps max speed increased to 525.

 

Hopefully we can get some online matches going by this weekend at least. I know we will never full agree on this (I don't agree with some of these either) but the speed change is the most radical and should be the most visible thing to test, so I think we should see if it floats or sinks early. Otherwise it is really just about making the numbers look good.

Changes look good for the most part...address things we all want to test, will be looking forward to trying it out...

My only concern would be that HCs are now less effective against LRFs than they were before...their damage dropped by 20% while LRFs dropped only by 15%...

Opps, good catch. I meant to decrease HC damage to light frigates to 1.2, not light armor type. I changed the download to correct this, if you already downloaded it change Composite to light back to 1.5 and Composite to Medium to 1.2.

Sweet! Look forward to trying these out.