4.75 Beta Release

[Wrath]

He said he was going to tone down turrets somewhere inbetween their values last patch and their current values. For examle osiris turrets were 1000 something, now 1500. I believe he said he was going to put them around 1250-1350.

Igiss toned down missiles because certain ships are immune to them. He said he was going to change them, but still reduce their power so that the strongest would be about 5000 instead of 7000.

Also I talked him into testing increasing flak turret damage radius to see if that would hit the missile immune areas better. it could work, but the radius might have to be gigantic for them to hit. However, that actually sounds really cool, flak turrets that hit for 1000, but have an explosion radius the size of an armored transport.... or bigger. :D

Currently flak turrets are stronger than battleship missile turrets..... why? They track better than missiles and still don't hit dead zones (which was his hope). Personally I think the missiles should do much more damage, and the flak should be sort of a special weapon...... Greatly increased tracking radius and huge explosion radius.

*Note:* Rheinland battleships still dont take off from planets as indicated in the patch notes. The explosion on the other hand is massive and impressive as the ship breaks into two pieces. A second and third test have indicated that you can take off, but you suffer massive hull damage. Could we please, please get planetary collison damage removed? has anyone ever accidently run into a planet? I know some peopel purposefully ram them to return to their prefered outpost sooner to get to the next mission.... Isn't that more abusive?

Personally I think the proposed weapon changes are not a good idea. Intermediate ships would be much weaker than battleships due to the difference in gun totals. If you increase the weapons say 25% a medium sized ship like a cruiser will recieve that increase on 6-8 guns (typical cruiser fire arc). Battleships have more guns, and usually better fire arcs, so the 25% increase will affect them much more..... imagine a 25% increase on 17 guns (about 3/4 of which fire forward) that already do more damage to begin with.

Name a capital ship of cruiser size or larger that does not have an angle of missile immunity. I honestly can't think of one, and I've tried just about every one except the new nomad ships. The nomad battleship by the way is near totally missile immune if not completely; I suspect the latter. The Osiris/Liberty dreadnaut is virtually missile immune, which is why Denier-of-Soup bought one to replace his beloved Bretonia battleship. Missiles are indredibly non-reliable all things considered. Therefore I propose they should keep their old damages. Another problem with missiles is that sometimes your missiles will lock onto incoming enemy missiles (without the player doing anything). This makes a missile stalemate as your missiles charge theirs and neither of you does any missile damage to the enemy vessel. As previously mentioned turrets have about 4 times the projectile velocity of missiles, which means they potentially hit their intended target near instantly, while missiles take about 5 to 6 seconds to reach their target. As also previously mentioned, the time to reposition to correctly fire missiles added to the relatively slow velocity of missiles makes them inherently less powerful than turrets against any ship larger than a cruiser.

If the weapon options were as follows:
1) Keep existing weapons as they were in 4.74 (aside from the corrected torpedo and the new fighter energy weapon).
2) Increase turret damage slightly and keep missile damage the same.
3) Increase turret damage slightly and reduce missile damage slightly.
4) Make turrets crazy awesome and missiles terrible.

This is how I would order such a list in terms of fairness ( all things considered). This ordering also happens to coincide with how I believe players would be most willing to accept the weapon changes.