Patch 1.1 Hull Analysis

[unmerged(102887)]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Arp9yneyL3DndDJZTHY4OFB5emRGcVBCVUFGNUNOYlE&usp=sharing

Summary: A move in the right direction, but not sufficient to crack the balance equation back open. Stingrays, in particular, still have the fastest forward and reverse movement in the game, the armor of a Dreadnought, considerable forward throw in their 12 facing, and a shallow draft.

Keep at it, guys!

M

 

[unmerged(733122)]

They're also pretty expensive, modestly armed, and because of their size, it's actually easier in some ways to purposely target their rear armor. I would worry more about interceptors/bullys and atlas/dreads. They now have the same cost. I think interceptor/bully may work out but why would anyone take a dread over an atlas? They cost the same, are even bigger, and have fewer mounts in front. Perhaps the developers see them as having a similar relationship as int/bull and don't want cost to be the issue that decides which one you choose.

 

[KildarKMT]

I don't think the patch updates have been reflected in your spreadsheet (price, health are 1.0), and OTSPA can probably be simplified to "potential forward firepower" or something like that haha (the Scout only has 5 offensive forward facing offensive slots btw). If you could also add in a column for vision (w/ or w/out scout bridges), you would have the most complete and easy to view stat sheet.

I also think a column for ship durability could be a useful number as well, and can be represented by weighting its hp by its armor rating (then reducing it minimize the number of zeroes).

 

[KildarKMT]

They're also pretty expensive, modestly armed, and because of their size, it's actually easier in some ways to purposely target their rear armor. I would worry more about interceptors/bullys and atlas/dreads. They now have the same cost. I think interceptor/bully may work out but why would anyone take a dread over an atlas? They cost the same, are even bigger, and have fewer mounts in front. Perhaps the developers see them as having a similar relationship as int/bull and don't want cost to be the issue that decides which one you choose.

Ceptors/Bullies would be even worse off than the Dread/Atlas, because at least the latter 2 have meaningful profile differences, but it's all ridiculous. And cost should be an issue as long as the armor classes remain different.

 

[unmerged(102887)]

I think I updated costs but forgot to check healths - doublchecking now.

edit: No, that matches what I have in my client. What are you seeing that's incorrect?
double edit: Did you see the version tabs at the bottom?

 

[KildarKMT]

Ah sorry, health remains the same and no I did not notice the version tabs. My bad.

 

[unmerged(735025)]

how is the scout the mount efficency on a common wealth scout 100 and the short fin is not.I find it annoying i have to turn to launch a probe when on the shortfin if you set it past its initial range in the red then the next turn you can throw it around a corner without being exposed mid turn is very efficent because of its mount position.Is at an official doc?Going by those numbers it is pretty obvious the Marauders' really got the short end of the stick.Like there is a missing ship.Very interesting chart however.

 

[KildarKMT]

It's probably more understandable if he calculated took the inverse of that number to get a "cost per mount" fielded on that ship, assuming you max out the arms limit. The Overlord then becomes the cheapest way to bring a lot of weapons at 67 points per mount, and the Spearhead the more expensive solution at 225 points per mount. Of course, with increasing cost per mount you get the increasing armor and health.

 

[unmerged(102887)]

You can look at it in either direction - the point was to make all the derivative numbers consistent as either "higher is better" or "lower is better". In this case, they are all framed as "higher is better".

Edit: I'll add some description stuff.