Now that turrets are fixed, can we adress other ballance issues?

[mr.WHO]

How is that every single fighter in the universe can fit excatly 20 missiles, 5 flares and 50 deployables?
How is that every single destroyer type fit 10 drones and every single carrier fit 20?


X4 provide us with many interesting ballance options yet most of them seems to be not used and ships are just carbon copies of eachother - the same was in X-Rebirth (every capship fit exactly 100 drones) and it was NEVER adressed. Egosoft please make an effort - this is not something game breaking or that require bazillion hours of betatesting.

My ideas:

1) More diversification between Vanguard and Sentinel types.
As far as I understand - Vanguard is offensive while Sentinel is defensive/support.

Therefore:
Missile capacity bonus for Vanguards types
Flare capacity bonus for Vanguards types
Drone Capacity bonus for Sentinels types
Deployable Capacity bonus for Sentinel Types


2) Missile Capacity based on ships class:
Scouts - 20 missiles
Interceptors (basically only Elite for now) - 25 missiles
Fighters (e.g. Nova, Falcon) - 30 missiles
Heavy FIghters - 40 missiles
Frigates - 80 missiles (they already pack drone bay, landing bay so it's logical they should sacrifice something)
Bombers - 100 missiles (this is dedicated missile platform so it's obvious to have it more missiles than frigate)
Destroyer - 500 missiles (they are huge, so there is definetly enough space for those)
Carrier - 600 missiles (they are even bigger, but there is also need for space for drones, fighters and M-size ships).


3) There could be also another layer added for racial diversity like:
Teladi having more flares (gotta protect those precious cargo)
Argon having more drones (basically Argons were at the forefron of drone development during X3:AP)
Paranid having more missiles (I remember that Paranids had something to do with missiles as they exclusively produced Hornet heavy missiles in X-BTF and X2)


4) Boosting the benefits of mk.2 launchers - current +2 and +4 missiles for S and M size is nothing worth bother.

Here is my idea for mk.2 bonus over mk.1 launchers:
S-Launcher: +6 missile storage
M-Launcher: +18 missile storage

Also this would justify to introduce mk.2 missile turrets:
M-turret: +20 missile storage
L-turret: +60 missile storage

[Buzz2005]

how can anybody be against this since there are no discernible differences between fighters, ships with less weapon slots should always have better hulls and shields and pulsars should be very weak, I dont know why would I ever buy any other ship with the current balance

destroyers can have 500 missiles if you put all L missile turrets

[dholmstr]

The whole missile thing would be solved if missiles were wares and have sizes. Like small missiles would be 1m3 and a big phat torpedo was 5m3. Just spitballing numbers but you get the idea. This with some changes to holds for missiles would give more to work with. Now a fighter with 40 hold for missiles would still get 40 small ones but only 8 big ones, numbers again just out there. A missile corv...eeerhhh frigate would have much bigger hold and maybe a dedicated module for it.

[Shehriazad]

And while they're at it they may as well add some more versions of already existing ships.

Some of the Argon trade ships for example have L Turret mounts...actually turn them into viable "Marauder" boarding-trading hybrids.
Sacrifice some existing ships' gear slots for raw stats or even switch them with other gear types.


And lastly....RACIAL items that make an ACTUAL difference.(the below are just examples to give people an idea what COULD be done)

For example shields:
Teladi Shield: 150% Shield amount, 50% regen speed, 2 second regen delay on M and Up
Argon Shield 100% Shield amount, 100% regen speed, 1 second regen delay on M and Up
Paranid Shield 75% Shield, 150% regen speed, 0 second regen delay on M and Up.

Right now the differences are too small so people will naturally drift towards Teladi for shields as they simply have the most without the downside of slower regen really coming into effect.

Weapons:
Teladi Missile Launchers: +50% missile storage (flat max value for capships), -slower target locking/tracking
Argon Missile Launchers: +25% missile storage, baseline target locking/tracking
Paranid Missile Launchers: no extra storage, fast target locking/tracking.

Here the races would go for longevity vs burst.


Misc Gear:
Argon Scanners: Baseline range, standard tracking/locking strength, no effect on personal footprint
Paranid Scanners: Increased scanner range, fast locking/targeting (missiles and turrets are stronger), negative effect on personal footprint (easy to be targetted and missiles will easily hit you)
Teladi Scanners: Massively increased scanner range, slow locking/targeting (missiles/turrets are weaker), positive effect on personal footprint, enemies will have a hard time locking you down.

Just a random idea...funnily this idea would turn PAR vs HOP fights into absolute MADNESS as these factions (together with changed shields) would just wipe eachother out within seconds to minutes in any battle...meanwhile fighting Teladi would be a battle of attrition while Argon will have to work their balanced loadouts and try to use tactics.

[Lazerius]

How is that every single fighter in the universe can fit excatly 20 missiles, 5 flares and 50 deployables?
How is that every single destroyer type fit 10 drones and every single carrier fit 20?


X4 provide us with many interesting ballance options yet most of them seems to be not used and ships are just carbon copies of eachother - the same was in X-Rebirth (every capship fit exactly 100 drones) and it was NEVER adressed. Egosoft please make an effort - this is not something game breaking or that require bazillion hours of betatesting.

My ideas:

1) More diversification between Vanguard and Sentinel types.
As far as I understand - Vanguard is offensive while Sentinel is defensive/support.

Therefore:
Missile capacity bonus for Vanguards types
Flare capacity bonus for Vanguards types
Drone Capacity bonus for Sentinels types
Deployable Capacity bonus for Sentinel Types


2) Missile Capacity based on ships class:
Scouts - 20 missiles
Interceptors (basically only Elite for now) - 25 missiles
Fighters (e.g. Nova, Falcon) - 30 missiles
Heavy FIghters - 40 missiles
Frigates - 80 missiles (they already pack drone bay, landing bay so it's logical they should sacrifice something)
Bombers - 100 missiles (this is dedicated missile platform so it's obvious to have it more missiles than frigate)
Destroyer - 500 missiles (they are huge, so there is definetly enough space for those)
Carrier - 600 missiles (they are even bigger, but there is also need for space for drones, fighters and M-size ships).


3) There could be also another layer added for racial diversity like:
Teladi having more flares (gotta protect those precious cargo)
Argon having more drones (basically Argons were at the forefron of drone development during X3:AP)
Paranid having more missiles (I remember that Paranids had something to do with missiles as they exclusively produced Hornet heavy missiles in X-BTF and X2)

I would think more along the lines of:

Scouts - 10 missiles, limited to light missiles only. Should consider themselves lucky to even have a missile capacity.
Interceptors (basically only Elite for now) - 20 missiles (limited to 20 light or each heavy counts as two.)
Fighters (e.g. Nova, Falcon) - 40 missiles per launcher/ 80 max
Heavy FIghters - 50 missiles per launcher/ 100 max. BUT these share cargo space with other deployables. If you fully stock up on missiles, you can carry no satelites, laser towers, etc.
Frigates - 120 missiles per launcher/ 240 max. BUT these share cargo space with other deployables. If you fully stock up on missiles, you can carry no satelites, laser towers, etc.
Bombers - 400 missiles. Max of 15 civilian deployables, cannot deploy mines or laser towers. - It's space is pretty well dedicated to only missiles.
Destroyer - 100/launcher, Max 250 missiles. Missile count has no impact on other deployables/drones.
Carrier - 100/launcher Max 250 missiles. Missile count has no impact on other deployables/drones.

Honestly I had a hard time letting destroyers/carriers actually have those numbers, because they shouldn't just be missile boats. Allow for multiple missile points, or set dedicated points as missile hard points, sure, but Bombers should really be the go to as dedicated missile boats. Currently, there's not enough of a reason to justify using them, since 1 engagement with a capital ship, and they already need to restock.

[Lazerius]

The whole missile thing would be solved if missiles were wares and have sizes. Like small missiles would be 1m3 and a big phat torpedo was 5m3. Just spitballing numbers but you get the idea. This with some changes to holds for missiles would give more to work with. Now a fighter with 40 hold for missiles would still get 40 small ones but only 8 big ones, numbers again just out there. A missile corv...eeerhhh frigate would have much bigger hold and maybe a dedicated module for it.

I can get behind this. I miss having a fighter put whatever the hell I want it to put inside of its hold, until it's maxed out its trunk space.

[MegaJohnny]

I think a big thing that's overlooked is weapon compatibility. Equipment slots are based on tags, not just size - it could be used to create all kinds of limitations to make ships more diverse, but at the moment is only used to let mining ships be the only ones to use the mining laser. I think ships could be diversified a lot more if weapons weren't just about mount size.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Nope - don't see the need for this at all.

[mr.WHO]

In addition to OP missile storage, I'd also add boosting the benefits of mk.2 launchers - current +2 and +4 missiles for S and M size is nothing worth bother.


Here is my idea for mk.2 bonus over mk.1 launchers:
S-Launcher: +6 missile storage
M-Launcher: +18 missile storage


Also this would justify to introduce mk.2 missile turrets:
M-turret: +20 missile storage
L-turret: +60 missile storage

[Falcrack]

I don't really understand why missile capacity is not tied to the number of missile turrets. Aren't the missiles supposed to be loaded directly into the turrets, and not cargo? Therefore, each turret should add to the missile capacity of the ship. For example 1 turret = 10 missiles, 2 turrets = 20 missiles, etc. MK2 turrets would add 15 missiles each instead of 10 missiles each.

[waynetarlton]

One of my biggest gripes now after a lot has been fixed is for example, when ordering a handful of frigates to attack a ship, it's necessary to use the "fly to" function followed by the attack function when in range. If not, and use the attack function first, they go into slo-mo and never catch up to the enemy ship!! wtf. It's necessary in every cast to attack by surprise - why!!!

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

I don't really understand why missile capacity is not tied to the number of missile turrets. Aren't the missiles supposed to be loaded directly into the turrets, and not cargo?

Yes and no - missile capacity consists of two parts: spare ammo (which is defined by ship hull) and loaded capacity (which is defined by the firing weapon/turret).

In a sense the capacity is tied to the number of missile launchers available, but not exclusively.

L missile turrets have a huge loaded capacity when compared with S/M Turrets/Weapons.

Ultimately, I see no valid reason to alter this approach - at least for the Vanilla game.

The ONLY Vanilla game change I think is justified is to perhaps alter (not sure if this is already the case) reload times based on where the ammo is coming from.

1. Launcher Missile Store: 0.1-0.5s
2. Ship missile Store (reload weapon as well as launcher missile store): 1-5s

The AI should only use missiles when it is appropriate to do so too.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

One of my biggest gripes now after a lot has been fixed is for example, when ordering a handful of frigates to attack a ship, it's necessary to use the "fly to" function followed by the attack function when in range. If not, and use the attack function first, they go into slo-mo and never catch up to the enemy ship!! wtf. It's necessary in every cast to attack by surprise - why!!!

The current AI is not ideal in that regard perhaps, but it does allow for the player to control the tactics the AI uses to a better degree without adding multiple commands to indicate the tactics used. I do however agree that the AI should be adjusted to at least use Travel Drive to at least reach maximum engagement range (perhaps a bit beyond it). However, if a targeted ship is travelling too fast in normal space for an attacking ship to catch it without travel drive then perhaps you should consider using a faster ship, ignore the target ship, or set a trap for it then lure the target vessel into said trap.

Where the AI is concerned, I have some gripes about current defence drone behaviours - currently they do not always RTB after combat and when formed into Wings their wing men do not move AT ALL until the leader has docked. I prefer the release drone behaviour to what we have now.

[mr.WHO]

L missile turrets have a huge loaded capacity when compared with S/M Turrets/Weapons.

Ultimately, I see no valid reason to alter this approach - at least for the Vanilla game.

I don't see any ammo bonus when mounting the L missile turrets, nor with M missile turrets.

[Buzz2005]

I don't really understand why missile capacity is not tied to the number of missile turrets. Aren't the missiles supposed to be loaded directly into the turrets, and not cargo? Therefore, each turret should add to the missile capacity of the ship. For example 1 turret = 10 missiles, 2 turrets = 20 missiles, etc. MK2 turrets would add 15 missiles each instead of 10 missiles each.

I dont get what you talking about bc when I buy Odysseus and put L missiles tracking turrets the missiles capacity goes up, if all L turrets are missiles I can put 500 missiles in

[mr.WHO]

I don't really understand why missile capacity is not tied to the number of missile turrets. Aren't the missiles supposed to be loaded directly into the turrets, and not cargo? Therefore, each turret should add to the missile capacity of the ship. For example 1 turret = 10 missiles, 2 turrets = 20 missiles, etc. MK2 turrets would add 15 missiles each instead of 10 missiles each.

I dont get what you talking about bc when I buy Odysseus and put L missiles tracking turrets the missiles capacity goes up, if all L turrets are missiles I can put 500 missiles in

I checked this for 2.0 in shipyard menu - when I mount L missiel turret on Odysseus it still show me 160 missile capacity.
This means either shipyard display is broken or there is no bonus?

[GCU Grey Area]

I checked this for 2.0 in shipyard menu - when I mount L missiel turret on Odysseus it still show me 160 missile capacity.
This means either shipyard display is broken or there is no bonus?

You are correct, the missile display at the bottom of the ship config screen does not update to show new capacity when missile turrets are added.
However, if the consumables tab to the left of the screen is selected the increased capacity obtained by installing missile turrets can be observed.

[mr.WHO]

Thanks for info.

[GCU Grey Area]

By the way, if you really want to go nuts with missile capacity - get an Odysseus, install 4xL Dumbfire turrets & 2xM Tracking turrets.
Total capacity: 1,380 missiles, absolutely none of which need to be dumbfire...
Those L turrets never fire if there are no dumbfire missiles on board, however they do still seem to function as auxiliary missile storage pods for any other sort of missile - each L Dumbfire turret adds +300 to capacity (rather than +100 for L Tracking turrets).

[dholmstr]

By the way, if you really want to go nuts with missile capacity - get an Odysseus, install 4xL Dumbfire turrets & 2xM Tracking turrets.
Total capacity: 1,380 missiles, absolutely none of which need to be dumbfire...
Those L turrets never fire if there are no dumbfire missiles on board, however they do still seem to function as auxiliary missile storage pods for any other sort of missile - each L Dumbfire turret adds +300 to capacity (rather than +100 for L Tracking turrets).

Cool, must test that one. But still, this only shows that they should redo some of missile concepts in the game.