Forums » General

VO 1.8.116

12»
Feb 27, 2010 incarnate link
From news:

VO 1.8.116 includes:

- Behemoth Heavy Miner MkII now available in mining stations, requires Basic Miner III. Integrated 1000m mineral scanner, 3 large ports.
- Fix for case causing human-only Hive Skirmish to be started/posted.
- More reliable reward mechanisms (get rewarded for escorts even if you are warping).
- Navroute set again when leaving station after death in Border Skirmish.
- Windows 7 audio driver now properly plays at the correct speed when the audio device is not running at 44.1 KHz.
- Fixed UTC dates in Events menu and Keychain Menu.
- Station radar blip for conquerable stations is only visible to players who have docking privileges.
- A sector message is now displayed when the conquerable station is actually conquered.
- Giving a User Key through the Owner Key no longer creates a new User Key.
- Client build number in Credits menu now shows the downloaded version.
- Added auto-detection and changed initial default settings for certain Intel graphics chipsets, for improved netbook support (GMA500, GMA950, GMA3150).

There's a lot of stuff in this version, but among other things, players with Intel Atom-based Netbooks should have a much easier time getting started in the game. The station-blip visibility is another important change, as it will lead (quickly) to new "secret" conquerable stations appearing in the galaxy. You can expect more station/conquest related changes in this coming week, to further refine the gameplay and address certain issues, like increasing the physical size of turrets (so they don't make for such tiny targets). There may also be some new stations appearing. But who knows? If we add them, we'll let you know, but you'll have to find them for yourselves!

(Anyone who wants to try the new Netbook settings should nuke or rename their wgaf.cfg and config.ini and let the game re-generate. It will only work for Atom netbooks with GMA500, 950 and 3150 video chips.. so all current and past Atom netbooks aside from those with Nvidia ION).
Feb 27, 2010 ShankTank link
I think the small turret size is fine as it gives an advantage to people taking the risk of stacking their missiles. They just need half the armor is all.

Great update, anyways, can't wait for secret stations!
Feb 27, 2010 incarnate link
Makes them tough to repair though, too. Aggravates the issue of orientation quantization at a distance. Anyway, we'll see. I'll probably dial down the missile turrets a bit too.
Feb 27, 2010 PaKettle link
Looks like a nice update.
Feb 27, 2010 Maalik link
79399 cu to go!

Also, Chaakin, it's nice when turrets have enough armor that they can survive a wave of bombers and then be repaired.
Feb 27, 2010 Strat link
Nice update, Inc. I personally don't think the turrets should have any less armor. I've frequently been both an attacker and a defender. From both perspectives, I think the armor is about right. If anything, I'm interested to see other defense systems added like station guards.
Feb 27, 2010 Lord~spidey link
yay netbook patch!
Feb 27, 2010 davejohn link
Good progress.
Feb 27, 2010 missioncreek2 link
Its cool to see a 3 L port Moth. Great job Guild!

Dialing down the insta-kill missile turrets is good, but I'm looking forward to a fighter-based station capture system. The turrets have so much firepower that fighters are currently useless.
Feb 27, 2010 ShankTank link
Right now we can either go completely one way or another with the station defenses. We can either keep the ridiculous fire power that makes sure bombers can never stand still and therefore discourages furballs (which is undesirable) or we can have a defense system which incourages, even forces, the use of taking control with furballs that take place below 150 m/s...

I say this choice is completely one way or the other because while we are still using the turret system, we can't just nerf it because we want furballs. It will still be much more practical to run around in circles and it doesn't matter how much damage the gauss does as it will still always pester a straight fight.

So, while we're using the turrets the current power is fine, well balanced, just not very fun. Dialing down missile turrets won't necessarily make it more fun, it'll just make it less difficult. We need to change the system entirely if we want furballs. Personally, I'd suggest making the turrets fire nothing (just making them nodes that people have to destroy) and giving them shields equivalent to about a Connie (requiring two organized stacks at the same time), giving the nodes 60 minute respawn times, and adding a squadron of station guards (N2 Heavy Cell Vults with some gat/sun WTDs?) each with individual 1 minute respawn times that are only optional to kill. Just any idea along those lines is good, I say there should be shields not to dictate the number of people required but to force at least two people to slow down and prep to organize a stack at the exact same time; a feat that will no doubt require fighter coverage.

But anyways, yeah, a system redux anything along those lines (I believe I have a post for that) or we shouldn't come too quickly to the notion of nerfing the turrets.
Feb 27, 2010 Strat link
That seems like it could be a good idea, ShankTank.

Rather than make the turrets defenseless nodes, maybe just bring their firepower way down. Nerf both the missiles and the gauss significantly so they're not much more than minor obstacles. Lower the turret armor by around 50% and add shields like you described. Then add station guards. It would take some tweaking to get the balance right, but I think that could greatly improve the gameplay surrounding station conquest and defense.

The point of my earlier post was that the defenses shouldn't be any weaker overall they than are currently. However, I don't mind nerfing the turrets if some other form of defense is added to compensate, especially if that helps to shift the battles from bomber runs to more of a furball sort of thing.
Feb 27, 2010 Yuutuu1 link
very nice update! I also see the merchandise tab now so kudos!
Feb 27, 2010 ShankTank link
I think the armor is fine as is as long as the respawn time gets bumped up to an hour (along with the fighters and shields, of course). It would force fighters to keep the pressure up until the bombers come back so the shields don't respawn.

Personally, however, I think all the firepower should be removed from the turrets. It would pester the furballs too much. I think all the firepower should come from fighter defenses, especially those sun/gat WTDs. You're an anti-rat so I don't know if you've been on the receiving end of those things (not the wimpy BS iceflare versions), but they have brutal ai.
Feb 28, 2010 missioncreek2 link
Well said, Shank Tank. Fighter station conquest is essential for enduring appeal. Already the current system is losing player interest.

My version of fighter station conquest is:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/22723
Feb 28, 2010 Whytee link
hehe, sweet with the moth. And now......... wait for it......... WAIT FOR IT........

A Mining badge MK IV ship: A Behemoth with 4 large ports:)!!

For those of us who are terminally nuts. Otherwise, neato
Feb 28, 2010 incarnate link
> Fighter station conquest is essential for enduring appeal. Already the current system is losing player interest.

The current conquest implementation was never intended to hold anyone's interest. It was intended to be simple to implement, and allow us to test mechanics like the key system. We are still doing this testing, and still discovering bugs.

I am all for adding more fun in the meantime. If something adds fun and is simple to implement, we basically should do it. But let's not get carried away and call it enduring appeal. It is not hard to make conquest more fun than it is at present. I have always intended to have fighter combat in the conquest system. The currently implemented system is not a reflection of my intentions; all it has in common with my plans is the involvement of keys, stations, and some form of combat. Everything else is due to be scrapped as the scope of the system evolves.

Enduring appeal requires meaningful ramifications to player activity, which reverberate throughout multiple game mechanics. This, more than anything else is what I want for VO. It is what we need most of all, and the scope is far greater than just conquest, let alone fighters-vs-bombers.

In the meantime, I'll see what we can do to make conquest more entertaining, and involve more furballs. God knows fighter combat is probably the single best aspect of VO, and I'm all for playing to our strengths when possible.
Feb 28, 2010 Whytee link
well... that and mining Inc:)
Feb 28, 2010 Person link
Um, right. Mining.

But yeah, great update guys!
Feb 28, 2010 missioncreek2 link
Thanks, Inc, for your mandate of fighter and furball value. Your recent silence about it in this busy and productive season left me concerned that this vital aspect of the game could be overlooked. -- Silly me. -- VO is in good hands. I look forward to great furballs in some future station conquest!
Mar 01, 2010 MythOpus link
My God. A new mining moth?
Its times like these that I wish I had money to re-subscribe.
Now I'm sad. Next time give me a few months heads up on any mining updates so I can save money :D

We're getting closer and closer to the mining capital ship that I've always wanted.