Guardian

you`ve made your point TWU each race is different you could easily argue the same thing for frigates.. average buildrate for every other race on frigates is 14k and guardians is 72k pr.. i and alot of others do not share your view point.. if you can bring me a valid argument your current one i do not find any validity with... in this current discussion..
i even see no reason that the current emmy with 9 range is anymore unbalanced then 8 range... in terms of beat ability and spam ability.. its about how balanced the ship is.. yes its buildrate is faster then every other destroyer with 9 range.. but its basically the same thing with 8 range..
also if your leaving because your not getting your way then Cya...

The emerald was 9 range to begin with TWU, but it was rarely ever used. It`s actually a useful offensive ship in my opinion. It`s not even close to being invincible either given it`s hulll and mod reduction. Any strafez, herc, or flanking attack with something other than missle would rip through them.

lol i give up i cant be bothered :P

no one seems to test any of these ideas every1 just gives there opinion without any facts or figures put behind them.

from my previous testing i still stand by no range 9 ship should build fast that 25/26kpr (most range range 9 ships build no faster than 12kpr) and just cos u slightly nerfed the hull doesn`t change that fact....
it just makes the ship too strong v other destroyers that build at much much slower ships and i`m assuming by lowering the hull u haven`t solved that problem but in turn you`ve made emerald even weaker to caps.....

and i love the way 3/4 of the players pushing these ideas through are actually guards.... meh I`ve pretty much left the game now so this will be my last post ... chow :D

Also, just for Bio, as soon as the updated updates are implimented I`ll post a link to the new anfit`s mod
I might try to connect it to MY update server instead of his, to make things easy... but that seems kinda viral of me, so maybe not, who knows
Anyhow, once the official updates are decided I`ll post up the link >=D

@collective1 i ran the figures it works out better if no defense is just removed adding no retal also happens to make it a bit too good

@Archaeoptyrex yeah that sounds fine to me ill update the main post with all this so people dont have to scroll back

Edited by 420BadWolf on 2009-04-30

as for the range 9 emmy with the lowered hull and lowered mods coupled with an improved topaz -- that makes the ship list more balanced.

I have to agree that the current emmy is a little overpowered with its +90% missile defense.

since you`ve dropped the hull from 25k to 20k, might I suggest dropping the missile mod down to 80% rather than to 75%?

Don`t want to swing too much in the nerfing direction either

i`ve always thought the double of no-retal no-def makes a ship less spammable than not having `em ...

but i can see that adding no retal makes the corun into a bit of a beast as a lower stack

"Removal of no defense from G.Corundum i am against adding no retal as it would make it too spammable"
DISAGREE...IMO the `no defense` is probably a much bigger deterrent to spamming than lack of `no retal`...either leave it or add `no retal`

range 9 emmy looks interesting, concern about being too strong but maybe its lack of hull makes up a bit...

topaz looks cool - `no retal` without `no defense`, but not enough hull to be very spammable. good idea, and hopefully it works well

I think these ships look acceptable =)

They still look acceptable to me. The topaz seems pretty offensively set for a cruiser, but it might be used more when attacking, thus adding to a more balanced guardian offensive fleet.

i like BW`s suggestion except i would like a small positive kinetic mod on topaz but other than that they look good.

pistol pete-- your numbers are off. according do GY battlesim your destroyer with 0 scanner rating would be 28.6k and with 900 scanner rating would be 32k.

sorry made a few changes wasnt quite done when i posted feel free to look again lol

I would support those changes also.

i like it BW implement now

Suggestions:

1.
Removal of no defense from G.Corundum i am against adding no retal as it would make it too spammable

2.
L.Emerald
M Dmg 29,500

Hull 20,000
Range 9
Scanner 3,400
PR 42,236
Upkeep 4,536
BR 1

Ship Specials
No defense
No retaliation

E Shield -50%
A Shield +10%
ECM +75%
I Hull -60%

3 .
L.Topaz
M Dmg 30,000

Hull 35,000
Range 8
Scanner 5,000
PR 58,536
Upkeep 6,600
BR 1

Ship Specials
No retaliation

E Shield +20%
A Shield -15%
ECM +80%
I Hull -50%

Edited by 420BadWolf on 2009-04-30

I`ll just finish this comparison for you, if emerald was at 26k PR with its current mods:

emerald:
29500 M dmg
25000 Hull
Cost 1 turn to build

P.Thor
25600 m Dmg
8000 hull
Cost 2 turns to build

M.Chlorite
20000 M dmg
16000 hull
Takes 2 turns to build

19200 M dmg
24000 hull
takes 2 turns to build

The emerald would be much better than all the ships you listed and at the half BR. I would be too much IMO.

i think we should look at lowering the L emeralds scanner rating so it can more like every other races destroyers if it pr is going to be drastically reduced. lets compare what the scanner rating of 26k pr of other races missle based destroyers are. P. Thor= 800, M Chorite=1260, Tiger=850, and yet for guards you want scanner ratings of 3-4k for the same pr.
Before you start arguing that the shield mods make up for it remember that all the L Emerald designs have extreme mods going both ways. so while the ECM is high the energy and chemical mods are big negatives.

Hm, that post looks biased, so to elaborate:
Corun has been and even in current updates, been a defensive ship, removing no defense will return it to that role and make it useful again (yay)
Also, no retal encourages stacking, especially in low range ships, but with the super ruby, tourm, agate, and every L class, do we really need another no retal ship with no defense o.o
It seems more balanced just to remove the no defense... that`s just me

Erm, I personally would prefer corun has no defense removed, as opposed to having no-retal added, if that`s an option O.O

Seems like everyone so far agrees on no-retal for corundum. Any chance it can be implemented?