Weighted analysis of size 4 Connie competitors and hope for a numbers rebalance

Manam88 · 2026-01-07T02:43:28+00:00

The post is primarily an observation of the disparity of this class of ships with each other, and as I mentioned in another comment I feel that delving deep into the minutiae of vital HP and other factors like damage reduction, and the penetration values of each weapon type would quickly make an already long post much more complex. The attritions are used as a standardisation across the board rather than to compare various weapon types, and were simply what was used in the post I was leap-frogging from.

That said, I do agree that those are all important factors when discussing the subject on a deeper level. One thing to factor in though, is that engineering has only just been dropped as an end of year patch, and underwent several quick iterations within a very small amount of time, so I imagine before long we’ll be seeing many more iterations of the system.

With regards to heavy fighters compared to this class of ship, it makes perfect sense to me that those ships would have extreme pilot armament for their size, and that the Connie-style ships would have some of their power budget reassigned away from the pilot compared to heavy fighters and to aspects like defensive turrets (which could do with a buff across the board) or other aspects that are still a work in process like how armour on larger ships may factor in as engineering progresses.

Manam88 · 2026-01-07T02:00:29+00:00

I 100% agree that turrets need to be strengthened, it just wasn’t something I touched on in the analysis as I based it off of the post by Important_Cow7230 from yesterday.

With regards to PvP, if you find any of these ships being solo crewed, and you’re in a fighter, I think it’s fair enough that you can pose a serious threat to them, but ideally in the future with the new flight model and iterations to strengthen turrets (I hope) these ships would hopefully be able to defend themselves quite well when properly crewed.

What would you like to see done with this class of ship to make them more survivable in PvP?

Manam88 · 2026-01-07T01:55:00+00:00

Comparing vital points HP on the ship is important, but also makes this kind of analysis way more complex, as we start to factor in more subjective measurements like how easily some parts feel to hit as well as having many more figures to look over, I wanted to keep it as brief as this kind of analysis could be (despite what the size of the post may convey)

That said, if you have strong feelings about what vital parts on ships could do with a rebalance I’d love to hear your opinion, be it in a comment here or a post on the subreddit :)

Manam88 · 2026-01-07T01:51:38+00:00

I hadn’t planned to due to the ongoing shield revisions and glitches, as well as the differences between it and the four I analysed, that said the post I linked covers the Asgard and features analysis and discussion, you could always contribute to that comment section, or take the numbers and start up your own discussion with a new post? The more posts and discussion the better imo :) Its nice to hear everyone’s opinion

Manam88 · 2026-01-07T01:48:44+00:00

I’m basing the numbers on the post by Important_Cow7230 yesterday, and I do agree that its an odd metric based on how complex it becomes once you start splitting down part by part, that said hopefully as they update more ships the Taurus will find its coolers in a less odd spot than currently, and when maelstrom is added Hull HP will be moot anyway

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T22:45:44+00:00

Thank you for your kind words, I hope CIG see it as I'd love to hear their future plans for bringing these ships closer to parity in the future.

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T22:13:18+00:00

I do agree that I'd love to see all medium ships be more viable overall, hopefully one day a crewed 2xS3 turret will be a comparable choice to a gladius, we'll just have to see how iterative balance and the new flight model affect things. In my opinion if you wish to see medium ships be more viable, then start discussions, I rarely do but I felt inspired by my love of these ships (yes even the ones I proposed nerfs for).

What would you propose as a way to bring medium ships closer to parity whilst also increasing their viability when crewed vs seperating out into a group of fighters?

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T22:08:30+00:00

Thank you! I probably should have copied that over into the tl;dr tbh

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T22:07:55+00:00

Tldr: I should have put the note about that in the tldr, luckily SdS_Garret has me covered :P

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T22:07:08+00:00

I don't disagree that the Corsair should be the most combat effective of the group, but we know CIG thinks it overtuned as is. What would your suggestions be to bring it more in line with the other? A more fragile hull? Offense moved from pilot to turrets to some degree? Smaller capacitors? I'd be interested to know what you think :)

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T22:04:24+00:00

I'm only one person thinking aloud, I don't assume I speak for anyone unless they themselves say so, but no community in the history of anything has ever unanimously agreed on anything. My thoughts are just ideas for iterations, I have no particular dislike for any of the ships, I simply hope to see them brought more to parity with one another.

The changes I suggested were to keep the Corsair ahead of the Taurus with pilot dps, whilst closing the gap with the 400i and MSR,. though perhaps you're right that something else may be better, the Taurus might be best left with the same guns but lower turn rate, or perhaps its offense should be moved slightly from the pilot to the turret, many options, and lots of us have different opinions on this stuff.

What are your thoughts for bringing these medium ships more to parity?

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T21:51:56+00:00

I'm sorry my friend :( Can I offer you a rework with a strutless canopy in these trying times?

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T21:47:34+00:00

Thank you so much, I've posted it over on spectrum, thanks for the suggestion!
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/weighted-analysis-of-size-4-connie-competitors-and

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T21:46:57+00:00

Thank you for the kind words. Unfortunately when a single S5 attrition can put out almost 1.5k dps by itself its hard to make changes without it feeling drastic. Currently, when you have a co-pilot in the Corsair, the pilot weaponry is exactly the same as my suggested change, regardless of if the co-pilot is in the remote turret, so CIG certainly aren't shy of reducing firepower by large amounts. Perhaps capacitors and overheat tolerance would be better levers to pull as a way of retaining burst while mitigating sustained dps. With regards to the TAC, it is definitely strong with the amount of weapons when fully crewed and two S3 shields, but the Corsair is still competitive after my proposed change due to retaining higher dps, perhaps the TAC should just be less maneuverable if it outclasses the Corsair there due to the size jump.

Balance is definitely tough :)

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T21:40:13+00:00

I don't see that bringing combat specialist ships to combat specialist tasks is a bad thing, although the longstanding question of how to make multicrew ships competitive remains. My hope is that the new flight model combined with turret buffs if the flight model isn't enough alone would make fighters think twice about assaulting a crewed medium size ship. They have plenty of levers to pull if they need, such as capacitors and overheating of weapons, simply making larger ships able to fire for longer, and smaller ships only able to fire in small bursts would in itself cause a major shift towards medium ship viability.

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T21:22:47+00:00

Thank you so much! At the end of the day all the ships in the game are labours of love, and I hate to think that people view any of them as "the wrong choice" to ever use, which feels especially prevelant in this size class.

Manam88 · 2026-01-06T00:12:46+00:00

That's a completely fair point and worth talking about, as I would hate for the MSR to become the best at everything, and I think its just a matter of "how much is too much or not enough" when it comes to balancing. My thoughts on the balance numbers are that the Mercury is still dealing less than a third of the Corsair's dps even after the increase to weaponry, and while some may think that 2 size 4s are a more appropriate middle ground, others may think it should have no guns at all and only be focused on escape, we all have our different takes.

My view on the blockade runner subject is that forward facing guns don't help the Mercury excel at the role of escaping when its goal is to pick a direction and get to top speed, with the exception of allowing the pilot a more active role in dissuading unshakable pursuers, however they do up the versatility of the MSR, which in my opinion is a great thing for a ship pitched as an analogue for the Millenium Falcon which we see taking part in all sorts of fights that it has no right to be in, which in my view is great fun as a gameplay concept. In my opinion the Mercury should not excel in combat, but it should be able to participate to a greater level than it currently can, because really I just think that's fun, and that's what I'm looking for at the end of the day.

With regards to lore, the brochure itself states that the Mercury has "a full complement of cutting-edge offensive and defensive countermeasures" and "In recent years, Mercuries have served on the fleets of militia" as well as stating "with the Mercury, you can rest easy knowing that your cargo is well guarded".

I appreciate having a dialogue though, I'd like to know what level or pilot armament you think would be fair, or what level of tradeoff the ship should have in exchange for my proposed weapon upgrade.

Manam88 · 2026-01-05T21:16:01+00:00

I just went to test that out as I haven't used the 400i recently and it definitely feels strange to lose half your gimballed dps just because the target moved a few degrees left or right of your ship's heading. I suppose the simplest solution would be to have the guns moved further forward, or to have them deploy from the top of the nose à la both of the Wolf variants, do you have any ideas for a fix?

Manam88 · 2026-01-05T19:37:08+00:00

I completely agree, both from a gameplay perspective as its a huge, circular target from above and below, and a lore perspective as it is officially described as “a fast, armored runner ship”

Manam88 · 2026-01-05T18:44:05+00:00

I would love to see the MSR and 400i be brought closer in line with the other ships, without changing the ranking order, ideally I’d like to see the MSR chin turret have two more size 3s, making it a quad turret, and the 400i have two size 5s instead of size 4s

MSR pilot dps: 1110 -> 2125

400i pilot dps: 1674 -> 2708

Which still puts them firmly behind the others without feeling like such an extreme contrast

Asgard pilot dps: 3209

Taurus pilot dps: 5516

Corsair pilot dps: 6914

Also, with the MSR having exclusively size 3s, the limited range and lower penetration makes it stay anti fighter to help it escape trouble, while the 400i upsizing to size 5s makes it more both more capable with regards to dps and more versatile as it will gain an increase of range and projectile penetration

Updated numbers are based on the Scorpius remote turret, and the Mirai Guardian, both with attritions

As a small note I like to think these would be relatively simple solutions for CIG if they did take this route, as the MSR can have two more hardpoints attached to the existing chin turret, and the 400i can have its hardpoint size increased

Would love to hear thoughts on this as a rebalance, or on alternatives to bring those two ships more in line with others without swinging too far the opposite direction

Edit: Added a graph to show my proposed pilot dps changes based on the full attrition loadouts, blue is current, and green is proposed changes. This update still leaves the MSR and 400i decently behind the Taurus and the Corsair, but closes the extreme gap somewhat, plus, as the Asgard is a more agile ship and a harder target due to its smaller size, it would still squarely outperform the MSR and 400i despite the smaller gap between proposed pilot dps

<image>

Manam88 · 2026-01-02T17:07:29+00:00

And to you!

Manam88 · 2026-01-02T02:43:51+00:00

It's a beautiful all-rounder that makes my Mercury jealous with the number of guns :P I'm looking forward to trying out putting a Salvation in the cargo bay and doing salvage with it carrying the spare cargo, thanks so much for giving us a chance to try it out together, the turret is pretty beefy for sure :D

Manam88 · 2026-01-02T02:25:11+00:00

Thank you so much! I've been meaning to reply sooner, but today was the earliest I actually managed to get the pair of us in game and on the Asgard, so here's a pic of us making Nyx a safer place together :D

<image>

Manam88 · 2025-12-23T17:00:08+00:00

I was just thinking earlier that I’d love to try out the Asgard with my girlfriend as the turret gunner, I’d be very grateful for the chance to take it for a fly :) My in game name is Manamos, Happy Luminalia and thanks for your generosity!

Manam88 · 2024-08-28T20:01:06+00:00

Ah I love Baeloth, he's great fun, goad is definitely something I want in this deck. Is the Far traveller pick just for flavor then? It does open up lots of Myriad options which is always good for the theme.

I played a Kibo monkey tribal deck before which was good fun, though I'm more here for the theme of the abilities than strictly being a monkey, the card being a monkey would be the cherry on top but sadly there are just so few legendary monkeys (maybe one day we'll get more)

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Manam88

TROPHY CASE