Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reshy]

Here's some ships I believe are rather underpowered in one way or another and I believe need some kind of buff.  What ships do other people feel are underpowered, why, and how do you think they can be fixed.  Do the ships I picked out as 'weak' seem accurate, and do the changes I purpose seem to be within reason?




Vigilance:  It's an interesting frigate, it's like what you get when the tempest knocks up a hound and has a baby, having one medium missile and one medium energy slot.  It however lacks overall weaponry and is generally very weak statistically compared to most ships.

Suggested Fix:  Bring top speed up to 120, increase OP to 45, add one or two more small turrets somewhere on the body, increase armor up to 250, increase hull to 1400, increase flux capacity to 2250, and flux dissipation to 150.



Buffalo MK2:  Probably the weakest ship in the game, lacks shields, has lots of low ammunition weapons, and has low hull and armor.  

Suggested fix:  Bump up armor rating to 400-500, increase turn rate, change the small missile racks on the side to universal/add more slots.



Condor:  Both the Tarsus and the condor have flight decks, the whole point of a 'Carrier Conversion' was to make it a more competent carrier.  Right now it's stats are ever so slightly better than it's cousin that has more utility function (campaign wise).

Suggested fix:  Add 1-2 more slots, and give it a single medium ballistic slot, bump it's OP up to 50, and bump speed up to 45.



Hammerhead:  The hammerhead is probably the weakest destroyer among the dedicated destroyer classes versus the combat converted freighters.  While still competent it lacks little redeeming about it.  It lacks the flexibility of both the medusa and the enforcer, it lacks the niche of the sunder, it lacks the frontal firepower of all 3, and it's stats are a compromise between them.

Suggested fix:  Add one more turret slot onto the ship (Gives it 9 guns, just like the medusa and enforcer), change the two frontal missile racks to universals, drop top speed to 80, increase flux capacity to 5000, and give it 85-90 OP as currently it has the least of the three.



Falcon:  The falcon is a curious little ship, on paper it looks pretty good, but when compared to it's older brother it simply cannot match.  It gains 25 speed and two less FP over it's larger brother at the cost of 1 medium energy, 1 medium ballistic, 3 small energy, 2000 hull, 250 armor, 3000 flux capacity, 175 dissipation, and 35 OP.  That's a huge amount of loss, it's basically a destroyer with the price tag of a cruiser.

Suggested fix:  Give it back it's two small energy slots, 400 flux dissipation, and 7500 capacity, and give it 120 OP.

[BillyRueben]

Out of all of those ships, the only one I would say is "underpowered" is the Falcon. The Buffalo MKII is supposed to be a terrible ship, the Hammerhead is one of my favorite ships in the game, the Vigilance is the most versatile ship in the frigate hull class (with the exception of the Hyperion), and the Condor is perfect for what it is: cheap fire support with a flight deck.

What I think the Falcon needs is more survivability. Maybe some more armor, a higher flux capacity, and/or a few more PD slots.

Of course, this discussion might become moot once the ship systems come out.

[Doom101]

Personally i think the only ship on the list that is underpowered is the Falcon that one i agree pretty much entirely on.

also the Tarsus does not have a flight deck i think you mean the Gemini which is, in my book too different than a condor to compare the two, yes they both have a flight deck but the Gemini has 2 medium ballistics often mounted with flak and that makes it not only a fine carrier but excellent point defense escort, if you can spare a destroyer for it.

I'm tempted to agree with BillyRueben that once ship systems come out and all the ships are more unique/useful in their own ways this argument will be moot. ( except maybe the falcon still.)

[Thaago]

Unfortunately I think we just have to wait for the next version to come out before seriously discussing balance more; there are a heck of a lot of changes coming with ship systems. Here's my 2 cents though:

Vigilance: It really is interesting! For sure a very different little ship than the lasher or wolf. It maybe could use a few more OP (5 would be great), but other than that I think its just fine. Having a medium missile mount on a frigate is just amazing! Previously the cooldown on harpoon racks made it a bit worse in a support role than the double small slots of other frigates, but the system

Buffalo: Its getting some speed, but its supposed to be crap, right?

Condor: The Tarsus doesn't have a flight deck. The Condor is supposed to be a poor mans carrier - it fits the role imo.

Hammerhead: I would have agreed that its a bit underpowered (5 more OP would be nice), but by far the most capable in a support role. With the system doubling its firepower for short bursts, I think its going to be a beast. Again, the 6 hangar points are really nice early game.

Falcon: Haven't flown it enough to say.

[lordyam]

i agree with the buffalo, the thing is ***. they only reason i like them is that i tend to get more of them from boarding parties and they are relatively easy and cheap to rearm. i am not sad when i see them go. however the other craft are all good depending on how you arm them and i dont think any of them should ever go it alone. they are nice faces in the crowd type ships

[Reshy]

The Buffalo is incredibly underpowered for what it's supposed to be.


"Rarely standing toe-to-toe with anything heavier than a frigate"   It actually loses to most frigates.  It also runs out of ammo very quickly.  It's also stated that no two buffalos are alike, why not give it some more versatility other than carrying a bunch of low capacity missile launchers?  I mostly however blame it's horrid base setup. It's pretty awful. 



The Condor's combat capabilities are so lackluster that it cannot even take on most fighter wings, much less frigates.  It's supposed to have a 'Respectable' weapon payload, but is totally outclassed by the Gemini which is a freighter and not a combat converted carrier.



The Vigilance is indeed versatile, but it seems to be lacking the combat capabilities of other frigates.  It cannot effectively defend itself from fighters, it has only one true weapon on it, and it has only a single medium rack while unique among frigates isn't that exciting when you consider that many ships that pilums would be useful on usually can absorb pilums all day.  Pods however are another thing, but in general that requires getting in closer than the Vigilance really should.  The Vigilence also has the worst armor I've seen on a frigate, lower than the tempest and having worse flux capacity.


The Hammerhead I see as being like a glorified heavy frigate than a true destroyer.  It has very low OP for a military ship, and it has only two frontal weapons which limits it's role mainly to support and not assault as is implied.  The Enforcer has 5 medium ballistics and 4 small missiles that face forward, the medusa has 2 universals, 2 medium energy and 2 small energy face forward, Sunder has 1 large energy, 2 medium energy, and 2 small ballistics face forward.  They all have more OP than the Hammerhead, and all have more weapons facing front.  The Hammerhead has only two medium ballistics, two missile, and two small energy, with less OP than all of them.



The Falcon lacks frontal PD's and is missing two small energy slots that it really should have to stay competitive with it's larger brother.  Hence why I think it should get it's small energy slots back.  It also gains little bonuses for the massive penalties it is as a light cruiser, the penalty to it's hull modification is particularly bothersome.

i agree with the buffalo, the thing is -my embarrassing lack of class is obvious-. they only reason i like them is that i tend to get more of them from boarding parties and they are relatively easy and cheap to rearm. i am not sad when i see them go. however the other craft are all good depending on how you arm them and i dont think any of them should ever go it alone. they are nice faces in the crowd type ships

Personally I believe ships should be more easily repaired once you've actually captured them so having a more 'sacrificial but brutally efficient' fleet is viable other than 'get the biggest ship that's the closest to invulnerability'.

[Thaago]

...
The Vigilance is indeed versatile, but it seems to be lacking the combat capabilities of other frigates.  It cannot effectively defend itself from fighters, it has only one true weapon on it, and it has only a single medium rack while unique among frigates isn't that exciting when you consider that many ships that pilums would be useful on usually can absorb pilums all day.  Pods however are another thing, but in general that requires getting in closer than the Vigilance really should.  The Vigilence also has the worst armor I've seen on a frigate, lower than the tempest and having worse flux capacity.

It does lack the combat capabilities of other frigates - but it also has capabilities that no other frigate can match. I agree it lacks point defense - swarms of missiles give it a major headache and more than 1 fighter wing is bad news. But... the medium mount energy turret combined with its small profile means that it still has decent firepower and survivability. For me its the medium missile mount though - 21 Harpoons on such a cheap platform is just incredible. With that firepower a Vigilance frigate can take down multiple destroyers or a cruiser in a battle - provided it is in a supporting role. Broadswords help.

I would absolutely love for the Vigilance to have 5 more OP, 50 more armor, and 1 more hangar point (yay broadswords!)... but I'm fine with it as is.

The Hammerhead I see as being like a glorified heavy frigate than a true destroyer.  It has very low OP for a military ship, and it has only two frontal weapons which limits it's role mainly to support and not assault as is implied.  The Enforcer has 5 medium ballistics and 4 small missiles that face forward, the medusa has 2 universals, 2 medium energy and 2 small energy face forward, Sunder has 1 large energy, 2 medium energy, and 2 small ballistics face forward.  They all have more OP than the Hammerhead, and all have more weapons facing front.  The Hammerhead has only two medium ballistics, two missile, and two small energy, with less OP than all of them.
...

The Hammerhead is like the Vigilance and other midline ships - meant to be deployed with support and be versatile both in and out of combat. None of the other destroyers have the out of combat versatility - in cargo, hangar, crew. I love it in combat already and am looking forward to the system.

[hydremajor]

I think most peoples can agree that the Vigilance is one of the best frigates around alongside the Wolf...both are extremely potent battleships although lacking in armor, hence requiring good flux micro...

The Buffallo would be better IF the energy hardpoint was replaced with another medium launcher, putting direct combat weapons on a buffalo is just a stupid, regardless of how you look at it...

Buffalo Mk 2 flaws

Absolutely terrible armor/hull
Maneuverability of a flying brick
Subpar firepower when compared to frigates
no shields

Clearly this thing is mainly meant to NOT fight ships on its own let alone using direct combat weapons such as beams or lasers

Only thing that WOULD save is either:

A: Let it have two small energy turrets for PD purposes and toss all the rest for it to have 4 or 3 medium launchers hence making it a capable support fire vessel

B: Pop the two small missiles and add one medium energy mount there so it gets actual range so it does not get in firing range of frigates as easily


The buffalo's main issue is that the thing is CLEARLY not made to take any form of direct fire YET it has weapons loadouts that force it to get in close range to actually get anything done...

[Chancellor Meatsteak]

I agree that while the Buffalo Mk.2 is supposed to be terrible, it may be a little too terrible. The next patch is increasing its speed and maneuverability however, so we'll see how that goes.

The Vigilance is a good support ship, if a bit too fragile for my tastes. Implementing all the buffs you suggested would be overkill, though perhaps a little more OP and/or durability is in order.

I think the Condor is fine. Maybe just reduce its FP to 8, since it loses a significant amount of cargo capacity for its flight deck unlike the Gemini which is 9 FP.

The Hammerhead can actually point all of its weapons forward; which means a total of 6 small slots and 2 medium can point forward, compared to the Medusa's 4 small and 2 medium. The Enforcer trades its high firepower for poor shields and slow speed, and the Sunder having a ton firepower is sort of its thing.

Again agreed that the Falcon needs a buff. What I really find irksome is that you can't have forward PD without sacrificing having assault weapons in the two medium energy slots.

[hadesian]

I don't use the Vigilance, so I can't honestly say.
The buffalo MK 2 is firmly a punching bag, and Alex agrees.
The condor may be in itself lacklustre, but that's not the point. I deal damage with the condor from the fighters I bring along, like perhaps a warthog wing (which is 3x light assault guns and 6x light machine guns (split up as 1x lag and 2x lmg per fighter) which can demolish fighters, frigates, destroyers and with two wings very easily cruisers. It's startling to watch the efficiency of hull destruction via LMG. All the while my Condor sits back and chuckles through the ongoing destruction.
The hammerhead can be very monstrous, just give it forward facing firepower from the small energies (IR Pulse Lasers perhaps) and watch stuff die. That said, my current Medusa build (2x Phase Beams, 2x Tactical Lasers and 480 flux dissipation) burns through the shields of fighters and destroyers alike very rapidly and then hurts the hull like hell, as well as 2x antimatter blasters, the thing is frightening.
The Falcon... meh. Have a read of my topic, Um...Midlines... to see the points of view on why IMO Falcons and Eagles both suck (Flux inefficient mix of energies and ballistics lead up to a very annoying hitting of the flux capacity max very quickly, which means you die too quickly due to lacklustre armour, it takes the worst of the low tech and high tech and mixes them. That said, the fighters, conquest and hammerhead are beast.)

[Faiter119]

Vigilance:  It's an interesting frigate, it's like what you get when the tempest knocks up a hound and has a baby, having one medium missile and one medium energy slot.  It however lacks overall weaponry and is generally very weak statistically compared to most ships.

Not weak, its a great harassing and fire support frigate. Of course it cant take down dedicated attack frigates. But it is great at harassing.

Buffalo MK2:  Probably the weakest ship in the game, lacks shields, has lots of low ammunition weapons, and has low hull and armor.  

Yes it sucks, and it is supposed to be bad. They are kinda the starting pray of the player.

Condor:  Both the Tarsus and the condor have flight decks, the whole point of a 'Carrier Conversion' was to make it a more competent carrier.  Right now it's stats are ever so slightly better than it's cousin that has more utility function (campaign wise).

Its a Carrier! Not a combat vessel, keep it at the back, flinging Pilums. Nothing else.

Hammerhead:  The hammerhead is probably the weakest destroyer among the dedicated destroyer classes versus the combat converted freighters.  While still competent it lacks little redeeming about it.  It lacks the flexibility of both the medusa and the enforcer, it lacks the niche of the sunder, it lacks the frontal firepower of all 3, and it's stats are a compromise between them.

One of the better destroyers, a fast concentrated firepower ship. One of my favorites, no need to boost it.

Falcon:  The falcon is a curious little ship, on paper it looks pretty good, but when compared to it's older brother it simply cannot match.  It gains 25 speed and two less FP over it's larger brother at the cost of 1 medium energy, 1 medium ballistic, 3 small energy, 2000 hull, 250 armor, 3000 flux capacity, 175 dissipation, and 35 OP.  That's a huge amount of loss, it's basically a destroyer with the price tag of a cruiser.

The Falcon has "little" firepower for a reason, it is the fastest cruiser in the game, almost the speed of a destroyer. If it was any better it would have been really OP.


And BTW, all your "fixes" were incredibly OP.

Just my 2 cents.

[K-64]

I have no opinion either way on the Vigilance, never been a ship that interested me either way, so I won't say anything about it.

Buffalo's supposed to be the joke, giving it a boost would only detract from that "prestigious" title

Condor's are support vessels, not frontline juggernauts. If you want a carrier in combat, go for a Venture

Hammerheads... this is the one I have to say I disagree with you the most. Hammerheads are wonderful ships, to the point where I very often make one my flagship (in an unmodded game). They're fast, they do in fact have good front firepower, good PD and can still take a fair few hits. Not sure on anyone else, but I feel that the Hammerhead can safely be given "The Mario" status.

The falcon is a bit weak for what it loses. I don't think it needs any buffs as such, just the penalties slightly lessened perhaps. Either that or a drop in the price tag.

[Temjin]

The Falcon is basically a Destroyer that gets Cruiser-level hull mod bonuses. Not great, but not terrible.

The Vigilance is fragile, but quite effective. That medium missile slot is incredibly powerful.

Buffalos are designed to be suboptimal.

Condors are not worse armament-wise than the Tarsus; they actually have flight decks (the Tarsus just has hangar space) and a medium missile slot + 2 small ballistic instead of the Tarsus's multiple small ballistic slots.

The Hammerhead is incredibly fast and maneuverable for a destroyer with great shield coverage, and the twin medium ballistic slots give it an awful lot of firepower. Two missile racks make it quite versatile, and it has enough PD coverage on the side small slots to be easily protected from missiles. Tactical lasers, IR Pulse lasers, or similar on the front Small slots are great for destroying smaller craft or pressuring larger ones. It's got enough hangar space and cargo to support a Broadsword wing, and makes a very effective early-game flagship due to how cheap it is to buy and outfit.

[hadesian]

I just remembered though - it's very easy to kill an AI piloted Eagle with a Falcon, just use HMGs to drive the flux up and Pulse lasers for fairly cheap damage.

[Kommodore Krieg]

All of those ships are fine for what they do.  Calling the Buffalo underpowered is hilarious considering it's suppose to be a cobbled together piece of junk to begin with.  It fulfills its role perfectly.  The falcon is a fast attack strike ship, and an excellent strike ship.  It's one of the few big ships that can put the deadly heavy MG to good use because it can get close enough to use them.  If all the ships are equal, which seems to be what your trying to accomplish using terms like over and underpowered, we have one bland game.