Forums » Suggestions
Player Cappies: The Next Steps after VO 1.8.257
- Capship pilots can now enter and leave their own turrets through the Tactical menu in their PDA.
Awesome to see progress on this. I know much of this will be re-hashing what has been said and said again, but while the update is still fresh and shiny, indulge my prioritizing, IMHO, the next steps:
1. Add a "Weapons Hold" and "Weapons Free" command to disable/enable all turrets. Player passengers triggering temp KOS in an NFZ should not be possible without captain's orders.
2. Add a way to assign passengers to specific turrets (we already have a "dismiss" command to relieve them without ejecting them). this lends itself to:
3. Add "Helm" to the tactical menu and allow docked players to be assigned or relieved by the owner to share piloting, while still keeping the owner bound to the ship. Do not allow the owner to be displaced by a passenger request for helm.
4. Add a "Captain's Boat" (could be jump-less) whenever you can figure out how a ship can exist without it's owner aboard, so a capship owner can access and load his/her station inventory, take missions, etc., out and about the verse. Ship tactical assignments should still be available to the owner aboard the launch.
5. When you can do #3, maybe you can finally assign the shield stats to the ship and not the pilot, and we can A) get shields, and you can B) reduce the armor.
6. Add cap-ship docking to capital stations, or at least 1 place in each nation.
7. Add-npc gunners for hire at said stations. AI turrets, but at a cost per hour. Requires target priority commands.
8. Make new classes of add-on "sockets" for capships, both fixed and turreted, so we can put real armament on them that cannot be used on small craft.
9. Make new add-on sockets for Master Computers, Sensors, Reactors, Shield Generators, Engines, and Up-armor, so we can mix and match a brave new future where more varieties of each can be had, with various advantages and trade-offs for each, so we can customize a hull to the demands of the mission. This would free you from having to release "Type P" and "Type S" Variants for any and every hull class you allow us to build.
10. Allow us to build more hull classes :) (I want my Connie!)
11. Make Connies and HAC's persistent, home-able, and have several stock ships available to get back into the fight. Might need a cool down after dying to respawn on these, to prevent ridiculous blockades. These would really need a way to implement full shared ownership.
12. Player-Built stations. Maybe for Vendetta v3.0!
Awesome to see progress on this. I know much of this will be re-hashing what has been said and said again, but while the update is still fresh and shiny, indulge my prioritizing, IMHO, the next steps:
1. Add a "Weapons Hold" and "Weapons Free" command to disable/enable all turrets. Player passengers triggering temp KOS in an NFZ should not be possible without captain's orders.
2. Add a way to assign passengers to specific turrets (we already have a "dismiss" command to relieve them without ejecting them). this lends itself to:
3. Add "Helm" to the tactical menu and allow docked players to be assigned or relieved by the owner to share piloting, while still keeping the owner bound to the ship. Do not allow the owner to be displaced by a passenger request for helm.
4. Add a "Captain's Boat" (could be jump-less) whenever you can figure out how a ship can exist without it's owner aboard, so a capship owner can access and load his/her station inventory, take missions, etc., out and about the verse. Ship tactical assignments should still be available to the owner aboard the launch.
5. When you can do #3, maybe you can finally assign the shield stats to the ship and not the pilot, and we can A) get shields, and you can B) reduce the armor.
6. Add cap-ship docking to capital stations, or at least 1 place in each nation.
7. Add-npc gunners for hire at said stations. AI turrets, but at a cost per hour. Requires target priority commands.
8. Make new classes of add-on "sockets" for capships, both fixed and turreted, so we can put real armament on them that cannot be used on small craft.
9. Make new add-on sockets for Master Computers, Sensors, Reactors, Shield Generators, Engines, and Up-armor, so we can mix and match a brave new future where more varieties of each can be had, with various advantages and trade-offs for each, so we can customize a hull to the demands of the mission. This would free you from having to release "Type P" and "Type S" Variants for any and every hull class you allow us to build.
10. Allow us to build more hull classes :) (I want my Connie!)
11. Make Connies and HAC's persistent, home-able, and have several stock ships available to get back into the fight. Might need a cool down after dying to respawn on these, to prevent ridiculous blockades. These would really need a way to implement full shared ownership.
12. Player-Built stations. Maybe for Vendetta v3.0!
All of the above should be stepping stones to a dedicated cap-ship UI.
These things can't truly be the industrial and combat monstrosities that they're clearly meant to be if they're just XL-sized moths.
These things can't truly be the industrial and combat monstrosities that they're clearly meant to be if they're just XL-sized moths.
Capships are a good step in the right direction, and a perfect end-game addition.
This would be great for people who personally wouldn't want to build one themselves, but still be active in piloting allies ships and support roles.
I agree with all the above suggestions, and I'm sure much of this is in the bucket list.
However I'd add something of my own which is a complete redux of the *Key System*.
Not only redo the way keys are distributed, but have this lay-in with the Cap-Ship UI:
-- Coloured Radar blips, showing those who can dock or not
-- Detailed Capship Radars (see Choco's thread for a step in the right direction)
-- Captains Tab (Like Tactical) where the owner of the ship has additional commands (like weapons hold as CD suggested)
The owner of the ship should also be able to have veto power over anyone in the pilot seat (to avoid hijacking).
This would be great for people who personally wouldn't want to build one themselves, but still be active in piloting allies ships and support roles.
I agree with all the above suggestions, and I'm sure much of this is in the bucket list.
However I'd add something of my own which is a complete redux of the *Key System*.
Not only redo the way keys are distributed, but have this lay-in with the Cap-Ship UI:
-- Coloured Radar blips, showing those who can dock or not
-- Detailed Capship Radars (see Choco's thread for a step in the right direction)
-- Captains Tab (Like Tactical) where the owner of the ship has additional commands (like weapons hold as CD suggested)
The owner of the ship should also be able to have veto power over anyone in the pilot seat (to avoid hijacking).
+1, I've never flown a capship but the suggestions sound good, and I'm sure they will be implemented Real Soon!
I would add a suggestion for cargo transfer between players docked in the same location (e.g. capship or station).
I think the captain's boat is not a good solution, especially if some more capdocks are added. Why not allow a capship to "connect" to any station from within the NFZ and allow (1) mission access and (2) trade options, where the resulting trade will be carried out by moths ferrying between the station and the capship, at the risk and extra cost of the capship. Repairing, refitting, and leaving the capship would be limited to the real capship docks., of which I agree every capital should have one, certainly given the amount of tridents in NPC voys.
To solve the IFF problem for AI gunners, why not make every player have a friend-or-foe list, where you can add players, nations, and guilds*
In normal space combat, this could help by colouring the radar dots, a more sane select nearest/last hostile not confused by friendly fire, and maybe a sort of auto-duel where kills by friends are automatically forgiven and do not count for PKs but for duel stats. Friends can also replace "buddies", e.g. make all friends automatically see logon/logoff (are there other buddy-benefits?)
For hired AI gunners/escorts, this can control who the AI will shoot at
For capships, this could control who can dock, replacing the key system, which seems less appropriate for capships than for stations since ships are more owner-bound than stations?
* resolving conflicts "css style" with player > guild > nation. For example, a RED IFF list could be:
Friends: RED, BR1
Foes: Itani
If you want to get fancy, allow standing as well, e.g. ItaniStanding > 200, SercoStanding < -200 or even ItaniStanding >= 200 AND ItaniStanding > SercoStanding
It is probably a better idea to resolve IFF via a lua call, so plugin writers can add custom rules that can be as complicated as they wish. I'm not a lua or plugin writer, but I guess the signature would be something like get_custom_iff(player) returns {-1,0,1, NULL}
I would add a suggestion for cargo transfer between players docked in the same location (e.g. capship or station).
I think the captain's boat is not a good solution, especially if some more capdocks are added. Why not allow a capship to "connect" to any station from within the NFZ and allow (1) mission access and (2) trade options, where the resulting trade will be carried out by moths ferrying between the station and the capship, at the risk and extra cost of the capship. Repairing, refitting, and leaving the capship would be limited to the real capship docks., of which I agree every capital should have one, certainly given the amount of tridents in NPC voys.
To solve the IFF problem for AI gunners, why not make every player have a friend-or-foe list, where you can add players, nations, and guilds*
In normal space combat, this could help by colouring the radar dots, a more sane select nearest/last hostile not confused by friendly fire, and maybe a sort of auto-duel where kills by friends are automatically forgiven and do not count for PKs but for duel stats. Friends can also replace "buddies", e.g. make all friends automatically see logon/logoff (are there other buddy-benefits?)
For hired AI gunners/escorts, this can control who the AI will shoot at
For capships, this could control who can dock, replacing the key system, which seems less appropriate for capships than for stations since ships are more owner-bound than stations?
* resolving conflicts "css style" with player > guild > nation. For example, a RED IFF list could be:
Friends: RED, BR1
Foes: Itani
If you want to get fancy, allow standing as well, e.g. ItaniStanding > 200, SercoStanding < -200 or even ItaniStanding >= 200 AND ItaniStanding > SercoStanding
It is probably a better idea to resolve IFF via a lua call, so plugin writers can add custom rules that can be as complicated as they wish. I'm not a lua or plugin writer, but I guess the signature would be something like get_custom_iff(player) returns {-1,0,1, NULL}
Some of these are good and some our bad. I don't like 7, 11, or 12. 7 makes them too over powered. If your going to be in a cap ship you should need friends. Some to cover your ass, others to man the guns. 11 cause it makes the "fleet" to powerful. There no way to dispatch the support fleet to get to the cap if it can just pop back out. 12 because that's just to EVE like. We don't need build-able stations, Conquerable stations seem to fill quite nicely.
All that said there is still one primary problem with cap ships. Apparently they can never be destroyed. You can just log out and never loose your ship. There is no risk of ship loss, so there is nothing to gain by attacking it. Till that is addressed then there is no reason to create new features. The log out problem is a base game mechanic issue that needs to be addressed first.
All that said there is still one primary problem with cap ships. Apparently they can never be destroyed. You can just log out and never loose your ship. There is no risk of ship loss, so there is nothing to gain by attacking it. Till that is addressed then there is no reason to create new features. The log out problem is a base game mechanic issue that needs to be addressed first.
Except for the fact that they're
Too few in number
Too hard to hold and too easy to take
Basically useless for anything you would use a station for (military bases, trading hubs, manufacturing centers, mining outposts, etc., etc.)
They aren't even what the devs want to do (You only need to look as far as the 400k stretch-goal [being the most recent and easily found example] on their KS to see that).
Too few in number
Too hard to hold and too easy to take
Basically useless for anything you would use a station for (military bases, trading hubs, manufacturing centers, mining outposts, etc., etc.)
They aren't even what the devs want to do (You only need to look as far as the 400k stretch-goal [being the most recent and easily found example] on their KS to see that).
"All that said there is still one primary problem with cap ships. Apparently they can never be destroyed. You can just log out and never loose your ship. There is no risk of ship loss, so there is nothing to gain by attacking it. "
You can't really call logging out winning though. Some would argue that this is a win for the attacking side, making the opponent have to log-out.
"Till that is addressed then there is no reason to create new features."
This is too stupid. Why in the hell should they stop creating features just because there is one little broken thing? They'll develop features, and if it is affected by the bug, then it won't be released until the bug is fixed.
Remember that capships are in beta, and take a considerably stupid amount of time to make. I think a little bit of invulnerability for something that isn't even perfected yet is a welcome tradeoff, considering you'd be screwed if they had shields. Once they do, I'd be glad to see logging off being made far more difficult.
"The log out problem is a base game mechanic issue that needs to be addressed first."
I do agree that the logging off mechanic for capships needs to be changed, however I don't really agree by calling attacking a Trident "pointless".
You can't really call logging out winning though. Some would argue that this is a win for the attacking side, making the opponent have to log-out.
"Till that is addressed then there is no reason to create new features."
This is too stupid. Why in the hell should they stop creating features just because there is one little broken thing? They'll develop features, and if it is affected by the bug, then it won't be released until the bug is fixed.
Remember that capships are in beta, and take a considerably stupid amount of time to make. I think a little bit of invulnerability for something that isn't even perfected yet is a welcome tradeoff, considering you'd be screwed if they had shields. Once they do, I'd be glad to see logging off being made far more difficult.
"The log out problem is a base game mechanic issue that needs to be addressed first."
I do agree that the logging off mechanic for capships needs to be changed, however I don't really agree by calling attacking a Trident "pointless".
It depends on why you are attacking the trident. If it is to get at the cargo it is carrying, to score a PK, or to exhaust the enemy's insurance so that they have to wait a week to get a new trident, then yes, the logout exploit ruins everything.
On the other hand, if you're simply trying to deny them the use of the trident over the near-term so they can't have in-sector repairs and reloads while you work toward an objective (blockading a wormhole, conquering/defending a station, etc.), then in that case getting them to log out could actually be preferable, since it saves you the time it would take to finish killing the ship.
On the other hand, if you're simply trying to deny them the use of the trident over the near-term so they can't have in-sector repairs and reloads while you work toward an objective (blockading a wormhole, conquering/defending a station, etc.), then in that case getting them to log out could actually be preferable, since it saves you the time it would take to finish killing the ship.
+1
^ Fantastic example right there. Even collector bots flock right to your blind spots in a Trident.
CD: #1 can be implemented with a plugin pretty easily, but how often is that actually a problem?
CD: #1 can be implemented with a plugin pretty easily, but how often is that actually a problem?
"You can't really call logging out winning though. Some would argue that this is a win for the attacking side, making the opponent have to log-out."
Fights should always conclude. Even if the conclusion is escape. Logging out defeats the counter to escape (find and keep shooting)
"This is too stupid. Why in the hell should they stop creating features just because there is one little broken ..."
Normally I would agree but there are two counter points to this.
1. If your car doesn't have an engine, you add an engine before you start doing more stuff like tweaking the exhaust.
2. Specially with a small dev team, bandwidth needs to be addressed to the most critical issues first. For example (from really recent history. "Help No one can un-dock" has to be fixed before "Ohh pretty backgrounds and planets". The logout iissue is a game breaker. If you can't destroy/capture/whatever a ship then there is no counter point for it in the game. It's a totally broken feature and that needs to be addressed first.
"I do agree that the logging off mechanic for capships needs to be changed, however I don't really agree by calling attacking a Trident "pointless"."
I just can't see a point to attacking one if the owner can just log out if the risk gets to high. Another example would be a indestructible moth. Or a check box that makes any ship indestructible. Again were not talking about hard to destroy, or annoying to destroy. Were talking about "nope you can't shoot me any more my cargo is to valuable." What ever the ship, that's a game breaker.
idd:
I don't think they should improve turret coverage "much" there should be big gaping holes in the tridents defenses that should be covered with escorts. Dent's shouldn't be for 1 ship on 1 ship combat they should be the center peace of a very strong tactical fleet. They should (in my opinion) have enough coverage to "help" in the battle and be an pretty nasty "oh shit" factor to a fight, but they should not be able to sit on field, by them selves (no matter how many gunners) without being a great risk. Poor turret coverage (though maybe not as bad as today) allows for attack fleets to dispatch defense fleets, and get in some pretty nasty shots while the defense fleet re-forms. It also keeps people from using dents as a giant I win button. It (poor coverage) also makes it "at risk" without reducing armor or gimping the turrets to be "neutron blasters only" or some such thing.
Fights should always conclude. Even if the conclusion is escape. Logging out defeats the counter to escape (find and keep shooting)
"This is too stupid. Why in the hell should they stop creating features just because there is one little broken ..."
Normally I would agree but there are two counter points to this.
1. If your car doesn't have an engine, you add an engine before you start doing more stuff like tweaking the exhaust.
2. Specially with a small dev team, bandwidth needs to be addressed to the most critical issues first. For example (from really recent history. "Help No one can un-dock" has to be fixed before "Ohh pretty backgrounds and planets". The logout iissue is a game breaker. If you can't destroy/capture/whatever a ship then there is no counter point for it in the game. It's a totally broken feature and that needs to be addressed first.
"I do agree that the logging off mechanic for capships needs to be changed, however I don't really agree by calling attacking a Trident "pointless"."
I just can't see a point to attacking one if the owner can just log out if the risk gets to high. Another example would be a indestructible moth. Or a check box that makes any ship indestructible. Again were not talking about hard to destroy, or annoying to destroy. Were talking about "nope you can't shoot me any more my cargo is to valuable." What ever the ship, that's a game breaker.
idd:
I don't think they should improve turret coverage "much" there should be big gaping holes in the tridents defenses that should be covered with escorts. Dent's shouldn't be for 1 ship on 1 ship combat they should be the center peace of a very strong tactical fleet. They should (in my opinion) have enough coverage to "help" in the battle and be an pretty nasty "oh shit" factor to a fight, but they should not be able to sit on field, by them selves (no matter how many gunners) without being a great risk. Poor turret coverage (though maybe not as bad as today) allows for attack fleets to dispatch defense fleets, and get in some pretty nasty shots while the defense fleet re-forms. It also keeps people from using dents as a giant I win button. It (poor coverage) also makes it "at risk" without reducing armor or gimping the turrets to be "neutron blasters only" or some such thing.
Fights should always conclude.
Are you sure you're playing Vendetta Online?
Are you sure you're playing Vendetta Online?
@abortretryfail
yep, there are plenty of conclusions
1. die
2. kill
3. escape
4. be escaped from
I'm sure there's more but those are the basics.
Logoff so you don't have to do one of the above, should not be an option.
yep, there are plenty of conclusions
1. die
2. kill
3. escape
4. be escaped from
I'm sure there's more but those are the basics.
Logoff so you don't have to do one of the above, should not be an option.
"4. be escaped from"
Logging off does this.
"The logout iissue is a game breaker. If you can't destroy/capture/whatever a ship then there is no counter point for it in the game. It's a totally broken feature and that needs to be addressed first. "
It really isn't game breaking. Only a handful of people even *have* tridents. And it's not like they even have a great use as of yet. The only thing they're currently good for is helping make more tridents.
Logging off does this.
"The logout iissue is a game breaker. If you can't destroy/capture/whatever a ship then there is no counter point for it in the game. It's a totally broken feature and that needs to be addressed first. "
It really isn't game breaking. Only a handful of people even *have* tridents. And it's not like they even have a great use as of yet. The only thing they're currently good for is helping make more tridents.
"Logging off does this."
Yes it does. By cheating.
"The only thing they're currently good for is helping make more tridents."
Which, it just so happens, involves hauling some of the most valuable loot in the game. If you haul it in a trident, it is pretty much impossible for a pirate to steal it from you. It pretty much eliminates the risk unless a pirate shows up suddenly while you are loading/unloading and is able to take advantage of a VERY tiny window of opportunity before he is noticed and any loaded moths dock.
So yes, it is game-breaking. It doesn't break the entire game, or even every part of the game that involves Tridents (see my previous post), but it does pretty much ruin any attempt to pirate the juiciest targets in the game.
Yes it does. By cheating.
"The only thing they're currently good for is helping make more tridents."
Which, it just so happens, involves hauling some of the most valuable loot in the game. If you haul it in a trident, it is pretty much impossible for a pirate to steal it from you. It pretty much eliminates the risk unless a pirate shows up suddenly while you are loading/unloading and is able to take advantage of a VERY tiny window of opportunity before he is noticed and any loaded moths dock.
So yes, it is game-breaking. It doesn't break the entire game, or even every part of the game that involves Tridents (see my previous post), but it does pretty much ruin any attempt to pirate the juiciest targets in the game.
What Rin said. Carebears helping carebears Online!
+1 to every CD's suggestion in this post....