Forums » General
just made along post that refutted everything you said. But my pc crashed and I can't be arsed to post it again.
Sufficient to say:
There are boundaries to roleplaying. It has to keep the game fun and interesting. Just as you you can't just play an ass or a neonazi... since people will be offended...
And what I hav ebeen saying is that when you initiate a fight, then running is not to be regarded as a favorable roleplaying idea. Sinc eit takes away the fun out of a skillbased game. Not to mention that even in a dicebased roleplaying game you have antio run additions (remember the possible critical hits if you attack while moving?). There are boundaries to properly reduce this behaviour. But in a skillbased game it is very hard to induce this kind of boundaries. And as long as the game doesn't put them in, the community has to put them in, just to keep the skillbased part of it (and FPS based part), interesting.
Heck I cazn't even understand why any person that is a coward would initiate any toe to toe action. Heck I can't even understand why anybody would send out a coward off to battle since all he will do is jeopardize his entire team/squadron. I am pretty damned sure that these guys would get booted the first time they ever entered a combatmission.
What I would however see them do is become a trader, a bomber, ... places where running doesn't make problems for an entire team or where they will pretty much never get into problems doing it, or where running is even preffered. If you see your wingman run because he is a coward... I don't really think you will like having him as your wingman. Naturally if you get ambushed, multiwaylaid whatever... running is acceptable as long as you don't do it every single time... (again within boundaries to keep the game fun). Since don't forget heros get born on the battlefield, and they ar emostly not the people running away... but people that show great courage in even a lost fight. And im sure that there are people that in this game have survived/won a fight that they presumed to have lost. And trust me that gives a bigger rush to your veins then running away once you get chicken cold feet.
And I hav enever been talking about a spacequake orientated view, I am a big rpg lover, I have never liked fps-es due to their jackass and immature behaviour. And if you can instill respect and maturity in an fps then in my books it will become one of the best games available o nth emarket. And most of the rpg crowd are considred to be mature (although this is a generalisation...).
And once more I don't want it all, but if you do play a role play it concisely and don't get jacked up if somebody plays another roll, or chooses to not fight with you anymore (since that will be what I will do if you exert that behaviour).
PS: during the tri flare valks, there was more running away from fights then now... And trust me 3 flare valks are still awesome now... you jsut can't expect them to kill off everyhting (although in the right hands they still do).
PPS: I'm getting frigging tired of having to defend myself as not accepting running... I do accept running, but not when you initiate the fight... Don't forget this is going to be a hybrid game so you can't have it completely the FPS way or the RPG way (as you so nicely stated). But hey I'm not asking it to be the total FPS way, im just asking to meet me in the middle ground. And ffs is that so much to ask...
Sufficient to say:
There are boundaries to roleplaying. It has to keep the game fun and interesting. Just as you you can't just play an ass or a neonazi... since people will be offended...
And what I hav ebeen saying is that when you initiate a fight, then running is not to be regarded as a favorable roleplaying idea. Sinc eit takes away the fun out of a skillbased game. Not to mention that even in a dicebased roleplaying game you have antio run additions (remember the possible critical hits if you attack while moving?). There are boundaries to properly reduce this behaviour. But in a skillbased game it is very hard to induce this kind of boundaries. And as long as the game doesn't put them in, the community has to put them in, just to keep the skillbased part of it (and FPS based part), interesting.
Heck I cazn't even understand why any person that is a coward would initiate any toe to toe action. Heck I can't even understand why anybody would send out a coward off to battle since all he will do is jeopardize his entire team/squadron. I am pretty damned sure that these guys would get booted the first time they ever entered a combatmission.
What I would however see them do is become a trader, a bomber, ... places where running doesn't make problems for an entire team or where they will pretty much never get into problems doing it, or where running is even preffered. If you see your wingman run because he is a coward... I don't really think you will like having him as your wingman. Naturally if you get ambushed, multiwaylaid whatever... running is acceptable as long as you don't do it every single time... (again within boundaries to keep the game fun). Since don't forget heros get born on the battlefield, and they ar emostly not the people running away... but people that show great courage in even a lost fight. And im sure that there are people that in this game have survived/won a fight that they presumed to have lost. And trust me that gives a bigger rush to your veins then running away once you get chicken cold feet.
And I hav enever been talking about a spacequake orientated view, I am a big rpg lover, I have never liked fps-es due to their jackass and immature behaviour. And if you can instill respect and maturity in an fps then in my books it will become one of the best games available o nth emarket. And most of the rpg crowd are considred to be mature (although this is a generalisation...).
And once more I don't want it all, but if you do play a role play it concisely and don't get jacked up if somebody plays another roll, or chooses to not fight with you anymore (since that will be what I will do if you exert that behaviour).
PS: during the tri flare valks, there was more running away from fights then now... And trust me 3 flare valks are still awesome now... you jsut can't expect them to kill off everyhting (although in the right hands they still do).
PPS: I'm getting frigging tired of having to defend myself as not accepting running... I do accept running, but not when you initiate the fight... Don't forget this is going to be a hybrid game so you can't have it completely the FPS way or the RPG way (as you so nicely stated). But hey I'm not asking it to be the total FPS way, im just asking to meet me in the middle ground. And ffs is that so much to ask...
Attacking someone then running away is a time honored tactic with thousands of years of military history behind it.
Please address my points about story driven content. You say someone running takes away from the fun of a game: the only reason it does so is because the kill is the only fun thing about the game. Again, if I am defending a transport, you attacking me and running away is the only tactic that makes sense. You draw me off, allowing others to make the kill, or you survive in order to make another run at the transport.
In this scenario, who kills who is not the sole factor of fun. Accomplishing the mission drives both players, not the kill.
To quote you:
"And what I hav ebeen saying is that when you initiate a fight, then running is not to be regarded as a favorable roleplaying idea. Sinc eit takes away the fun out of a skillbased game."
It only takes the fun out of the game if the kill is the only fun in the game. If the only fun in Vendetta is making the final few hits on a target to see him pop, then Vendetta is doomed and this argument is pointless.
Please address my points about story driven content. You say someone running takes away from the fun of a game: the only reason it does so is because the kill is the only fun thing about the game. Again, if I am defending a transport, you attacking me and running away is the only tactic that makes sense. You draw me off, allowing others to make the kill, or you survive in order to make another run at the transport.
In this scenario, who kills who is not the sole factor of fun. Accomplishing the mission drives both players, not the kill.
To quote you:
"And what I hav ebeen saying is that when you initiate a fight, then running is not to be regarded as a favorable roleplaying idea. Sinc eit takes away the fun out of a skillbased game."
It only takes the fun out of the game if the kill is the only fun in the game. If the only fun in Vendetta is making the final few hits on a target to see him pop, then Vendetta is doomed and this argument is pointless.
I agree wholeheartedly with Starfisher. We need to get away from a "ha, I make ship go BOOM" mentality, and into a working together as a team to complete a mission mentality.
If someone really feels the need to chase down a fleeing opponent, why don't we make it simpler to to follow someone after they jump by making it a keystroke command? If someone gets a little too bloodthirsty this might even work to the fleeing pilot team's advantage by drawing them off, or by leading them into a trap.
If someone really feels the need to chase down a fleeing opponent, why don't we make it simpler to to follow someone after they jump by making it a keystroke command? If someone gets a little too bloodthirsty this might even work to the fleeing pilot team's advantage by drawing them off, or by leading them into a trap.
Ugh, I don't like the feel of that...
it seems its more and more not becomming my game. In stea dof an rpg we get a game like swat, MoHAA, or any of those other squadbased FPS games.
But maybe that is just because I am somewhat more inclined for the renegedistical feel of an rpg in stead of an mmo one. (this means single player).
PS: getting a kill is a way to earn levelpoints and points towards a licence, in that I presume that mentallity to be pat of the game only more groomed. But I still consider that ever inducing a deathpenalty that counters the ha, i made a ship go boom will make the skillbased part void... how else are you going to be governing skill...
it seems its more and more not becomming my game. In stea dof an rpg we get a game like swat, MoHAA, or any of those other squadbased FPS games.
But maybe that is just because I am somewhat more inclined for the renegedistical feel of an rpg in stead of an mmo one. (this means single player).
PS: getting a kill is a way to earn levelpoints and points towards a licence, in that I presume that mentallity to be pat of the game only more groomed. But I still consider that ever inducing a deathpenalty that counters the ha, i made a ship go boom will make the skillbased part void... how else are you going to be governing skill...
Renegade, I'd be curious to know what RPG you've played in which running was not a commonly used tactic. Virtually any RPG includes some kind of "Rogue" class which involves hit and run!
GM: "You encounter a level 60 Balrog."
Player: "But I'm only level 10... aaa run away!"
GM: "Sorry, running's not an option, ha ha!"
Player: "Nooooo..." *dies in 1 hit*
o.0
And please define "renegedistical", ya lost me on that one.
GM: "You encounter a level 60 Balrog."
Player: "But I'm only level 10... aaa run away!"
GM: "Sorry, running's not an option, ha ha!"
Player: "Nooooo..." *dies in 1 hit*
o.0
And please define "renegedistical", ya lost me on that one.
renegedistical = you can play a role alone, you don't need anybody else to accomplish a feat. grouping up makes it easier, but isn't necessary. In contradiction to what I presumed you meant with your squadbased idea... I just don't like being totally dependent on other people just to get a mission done... since what happens in case of a low online activity...
Guildwars : no hit an run type, and you got all kind of conditions that even reduce your runningspeed. But the difference is, hitting is based on a die not on skill... And you know just as well that getting a hit in here takes much longer then getting a hit in in case of a dicebased game.
BG2: thief is long range + pik lock abilities+ stealth. But not really running away...
Besides, rogues have always been a difficulty balancewise in any game. If they are in, they are more or less stealthy cover ops type.There for pikcing locks, disabling traps, engineering traps etc. I hav enever seen a tactic in a rpg of running. If you did in fact run, it got punished by all sort of punishments. Like as I stated before if you got hit being flatfooted or receiving a critical hit or being knocked down (making you unable to move for x seconds/minutes) or...
But seeing as this game is based on 'skill', you can hardly put those items in.
And please don't come with the levelapproach since that is point is flawed starting from the beginning you raise it, you should know that pvp in here is not necessarilly based on level. People with level 4 can be compettetive to higher level people. It is not as if a level 4 person has 1000% less hull hten a level 40 person. The level in here only dictates the access to a variety of items, not necessarilly to the best. Not to mention that opposed to the scene you painted dieing in that scene doesn't give the lowe rlevel person any experience at all for later matches, while in this game you learn out of your mistakes. (or at least you try) This games skill/twitch style of play is all based around trial and error... which de facto means that you will get deaths before you get used to driving the ship...
Guildwars : no hit an run type, and you got all kind of conditions that even reduce your runningspeed. But the difference is, hitting is based on a die not on skill... And you know just as well that getting a hit in here takes much longer then getting a hit in in case of a dicebased game.
BG2: thief is long range + pik lock abilities+ stealth. But not really running away...
Besides, rogues have always been a difficulty balancewise in any game. If they are in, they are more or less stealthy cover ops type.There for pikcing locks, disabling traps, engineering traps etc. I hav enever seen a tactic in a rpg of running. If you did in fact run, it got punished by all sort of punishments. Like as I stated before if you got hit being flatfooted or receiving a critical hit or being knocked down (making you unable to move for x seconds/minutes) or...
But seeing as this game is based on 'skill', you can hardly put those items in.
And please don't come with the levelapproach since that is point is flawed starting from the beginning you raise it, you should know that pvp in here is not necessarilly based on level. People with level 4 can be compettetive to higher level people. It is not as if a level 4 person has 1000% less hull hten a level 40 person. The level in here only dictates the access to a variety of items, not necessarilly to the best. Not to mention that opposed to the scene you painted dieing in that scene doesn't give the lowe rlevel person any experience at all for later matches, while in this game you learn out of your mistakes. (or at least you try) This games skill/twitch style of play is all based around trial and error... which de facto means that you will get deaths before you get used to driving the ship...
I just don't like being totally dependent on other people just to get a mission done... since what happens in case of a low online activity...
Well I guess we just disagree then... I play this game to work as a team with other players. If I wanted to play a single player game then I'd play Homeworld or Wing Commander.
And I used the RPG example to illustrate a situation in your own terms in which the player had little hope of survival unless they ran... such as being out of ammo in Vendetta. Forgive the absolute language, but I think its pure idiocy to say the only valid tactic when you have no hope of defeating your opponent but a good chance of survival by running away is to sit there and let yourself be killed.
I think part of the problem is that the only way progress is measured in combat missions is by kills, therefore by running away or /exploding you are denying your opponent their objective.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/10788
Well I guess we just disagree then... I play this game to work as a team with other players. If I wanted to play a single player game then I'd play Homeworld or Wing Commander.
And I used the RPG example to illustrate a situation in your own terms in which the player had little hope of survival unless they ran... such as being out of ammo in Vendetta. Forgive the absolute language, but I think its pure idiocy to say the only valid tactic when you have no hope of defeating your opponent but a good chance of survival by running away is to sit there and let yourself be killed.
I think part of the problem is that the only way progress is measured in combat missions is by kills, therefore by running away or /exploding you are denying your opponent their objective.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/10788
Phaser,
in my eyes it is not, since there is no real disadvantage at dieing. Maybe if there was, then maybe. However seeing that making people unable to run will make the game not very fun either. Reason why I consider a good compromise the time when you engage somebody to stick and fight.
Since as you know, the finish has not been reached untill the fat lady sung. And by maybe sticking and keeping on dodging, you might get one of your teammates to survive and take out his boogy or complete the mission. While if you run, you might foil it for all.
Homeworld and wing commander really don't offer the same gameplay as vendetta, for that reason alone I don't even bother to mention them. Some people see the MMO part as a way to interact with people playing the same game. Other people see it as a way for a squadbased game. And even others see it purely as a competetive playstyle in which they wanna beat the opponent. I am more inclined towards the first type, making me have fun with other people but not making me totally dependent on them. If the devs are going to make me have to do things in group, just to advance then chances are high I will stop playing. If they however make it available, but you can just as well advance by doing it alone or even together with others, but not necessarilly as a team then I don't mind.
In any rpg the point of the rogue is to not be noticed, if you fail you die(or have backup waiting for you). But the point of a rogue is to succeed at his job of infiltration and stealth not hit and run.
And yes, if your out of ammo, that is YOUR fault of not being stingy with your ammo. Rockettype weapons are powerfull and have big disadvantages because of that in comparison with energy. But if you make running able then you make this disparity smaller, and make it into a rocketslugfest (like we had during the tri flare era), exactly working agaisnt true RPG fun. In stead of having twitchbased skill fights. I however hope that I can not conclude that this is exactly what you consider to be fun gameplay...
And all my posts have been based with that rocketera in mind. Rokets ar epowerfull, but im sure some people don't like them because they can run out with them.
in my eyes it is not, since there is no real disadvantage at dieing. Maybe if there was, then maybe. However seeing that making people unable to run will make the game not very fun either. Reason why I consider a good compromise the time when you engage somebody to stick and fight.
Since as you know, the finish has not been reached untill the fat lady sung. And by maybe sticking and keeping on dodging, you might get one of your teammates to survive and take out his boogy or complete the mission. While if you run, you might foil it for all.
Homeworld and wing commander really don't offer the same gameplay as vendetta, for that reason alone I don't even bother to mention them. Some people see the MMO part as a way to interact with people playing the same game. Other people see it as a way for a squadbased game. And even others see it purely as a competetive playstyle in which they wanna beat the opponent. I am more inclined towards the first type, making me have fun with other people but not making me totally dependent on them. If the devs are going to make me have to do things in group, just to advance then chances are high I will stop playing. If they however make it available, but you can just as well advance by doing it alone or even together with others, but not necessarilly as a team then I don't mind.
In any rpg the point of the rogue is to not be noticed, if you fail you die(or have backup waiting for you). But the point of a rogue is to succeed at his job of infiltration and stealth not hit and run.
And yes, if your out of ammo, that is YOUR fault of not being stingy with your ammo. Rockettype weapons are powerfull and have big disadvantages because of that in comparison with energy. But if you make running able then you make this disparity smaller, and make it into a rocketslugfest (like we had during the tri flare era), exactly working agaisnt true RPG fun. In stead of having twitchbased skill fights. I however hope that I can not conclude that this is exactly what you consider to be fun gameplay...
And all my posts have been based with that rocketera in mind. Rokets ar epowerfull, but im sure some people don't like them because they can run out with them.
You're outlining SpaceQuake. If I run out of ammo as a pilot, I go and reload. If I run out of ammo in Quake, I get killed and respawn instantly, in the arena and ready to fight. Do you want to play Quake or be a pilot?
starfisher, I wanna play both. Not one nor the other. You keep on singlemindedly stare to only the RPG side. I am trying to get them both in it. Since it is a hybrid...
1) if you get killed in vendetta : you respawn immediately but ar enot immdiately in the arena but at the place at your choosing (might be 20 minutes from the arena as you so eloquently put it)
2) if I run out of arrows in an rpg I go to town and buy new ones
Once mroe, im outlining a compromise, not just one. I'm outlining an rpg with some fps characteristics. And last time I checked this game was going to be a hybrid and not solely one or the other. Seeing as I accept running as valid for non-combat oriented gameplay (or for things like bombers), but not when you take a ship and engage another pilot in it (although even then I accept exceptions, although running out of ammo is not one).
But like I said in another thread, I will see what the devs have in store and draw my conclusions based on that.
PS: and I'm trying to not let the quake era come back, since allowing running will let it come back. You can be sure of that.
1) if you get killed in vendetta : you respawn immediately but ar enot immdiately in the arena but at the place at your choosing (might be 20 minutes from the arena as you so eloquently put it)
2) if I run out of arrows in an rpg I go to town and buy new ones
Once mroe, im outlining a compromise, not just one. I'm outlining an rpg with some fps characteristics. And last time I checked this game was going to be a hybrid and not solely one or the other. Seeing as I accept running as valid for non-combat oriented gameplay (or for things like bombers), but not when you take a ship and engage another pilot in it (although even then I accept exceptions, although running out of ammo is not one).
But like I said in another thread, I will see what the devs have in store and draw my conclusions based on that.
PS: and I'm trying to not let the quake era come back, since allowing running will let it come back. You can be sure of that.
That's what being a pilot is, basically. If you get rid of this insistence that running away should be frowned upon, you basically have a MMO Freespace with a semi-newtonian flight model.
Allowing running does not drop us back into the alpha. Putting missions that have real objectives - not kill X of Y - will make running a real tactical option instead of a pain in the ass for the other guy. Right now, I totally agree with you. Running is annoying, and I do it frequently :P It's a pain to drive a Valk from Jallik to Sedina, so I run off instead of dying. It's gotta be frustrating as hell, but there you have it.
Now, if I was attacking Sedina B8 for a reason - like CTC - and I ran off, I'd miss the convoy. I'd lose, and the serco would win. My running is suddenly a far less annoying thing, because my death is not the sole purpose of the game. Running should stay in and be a viable option, but missions should be structured so that running is difficult or tactical suicide to do. I should have the option to keep myself alive, but have to suffer the consequences of mission failure to do so.
Allowing running does not drop us back into the alpha. Putting missions that have real objectives - not kill X of Y - will make running a real tactical option instead of a pain in the ass for the other guy. Right now, I totally agree with you. Running is annoying, and I do it frequently :P It's a pain to drive a Valk from Jallik to Sedina, so I run off instead of dying. It's gotta be frustrating as hell, but there you have it.
Now, if I was attacking Sedina B8 for a reason - like CTC - and I ran off, I'd miss the convoy. I'd lose, and the serco would win. My running is suddenly a far less annoying thing, because my death is not the sole purpose of the game. Running should stay in and be a viable option, but missions should be structured so that running is difficult or tactical suicide to do. I should have the option to keep myself alive, but have to suffer the consequences of mission failure to do so.
well said Starfisher. I agree completely with that.
In the BP mission, where I know there are a lot of players on each side participating, I will leave and reload and rearm, because I know that my friends can keep up the fight. But in a duel setting, I don't leave, whether I run out of ammo or not.
But the objectives of the two are completely different. BP missions are teamwork oriented and you want to get as many kills as possible while denying your opponent of kills. In that sense, it does make sense to r&r if possible. However, if I feel that I have a good chance of winning, then I will take the risk of fighting with low ammo or armor, and if I die, well then I judged wrong. But if I find myself 6v1 with 5% armor and 1 shot left, then you bet your ass I'm getting the heck out of there. In a duel setting, however, it's mano-a-mano, and if I run out of ammo, that's my own damn fault and I deserve to be killed.
But the objectives of the two are completely different. BP missions are teamwork oriented and you want to get as many kills as possible while denying your opponent of kills. In that sense, it does make sense to r&r if possible. However, if I feel that I have a good chance of winning, then I will take the risk of fighting with low ammo or armor, and if I die, well then I judged wrong. But if I find myself 6v1 with 5% armor and 1 shot left, then you bet your ass I'm getting the heck out of there. In a duel setting, however, it's mano-a-mano, and if I run out of ammo, that's my own damn fault and I deserve to be killed.
Star, if you run you might miss hitting the convoy... You might also come back and be able to kill of the guy guarding it. I know because it has been done. Heck, you might even just leave because you see your teammate hopping in and letting him take care of it. Although I would have just sticked and keep the person entertained a bit longer so my teammate wouldn't have had to fight the same pilot that I had been fighting. And the serco would not win. The serco defender didn't pull off in defedning the convoy, and he didn't get even a kill in for the driving off the person. So all in all it was a waste of his time... since he accomplished nothing (and I see no ways to give points for making soembody run since you can't predict that behaviour).
Like I said, i don't mind running. I just don't like that everybody seems to start to like running, since in my eyes it will only highten the amount of dickheads in game... Since if you allow it in missions, they will do so in duels to... I'm sure that you can remember the Tri-flare rocketera (since the community allowed running in there... with the result being stationcampers, wormholecampers,... etc). Keep running not allowed, and most people won't do it, with some exceptions.
PS crippled: I agree, in case of getting multiteamed it is your decission of running (if you stay and succeed you become a hero) if not well... If you don't stay, thats not running at al but a strategical retreat.
PS: star:
Pilot:
1. One who, though not belonging to a ship's company, is licensed to conduct a ship into and out of port or through dangerous waters.
2. The helmsman of a ship.
Like I said, i don't mind running. I just don't like that everybody seems to start to like running, since in my eyes it will only highten the amount of dickheads in game... Since if you allow it in missions, they will do so in duels to... I'm sure that you can remember the Tri-flare rocketera (since the community allowed running in there... with the result being stationcampers, wormholecampers,... etc). Keep running not allowed, and most people won't do it, with some exceptions.
PS crippled: I agree, in case of getting multiteamed it is your decission of running (if you stay and succeed you become a hero) if not well... If you don't stay, thats not running at al but a strategical retreat.
PS: star:
Pilot:
1. One who, though not belonging to a ship's company, is licensed to conduct a ship into and out of port or through dangerous waters.
2. The helmsman of a ship.
I think of VO as an rpg, with these sort of PvP arenas spread throughout. If you go into the arena for PvP purposes, you obey the arena rules, like not running. If you have to go to the arena because of a mission, then you just have to do your mission, running allowed. Now, the problem is that the arena is not clearly defined. Some people consider it to only exist in Sedina B8 and Deneb C10. Some don't consider it exists at all. Some consider it to be all of grey space. Some consider it the entire universe. And then there's a select number who just don't consider these unwritten rules at all.
I think I'll make a randomized hail bind, that says various phrases when running like "I won't go so easy next time!", and give them 10,000c or something. Hey, thats less than most fully equipped ships, so in the end you did save money. Plus, instead of you just losing money, your opponent would gain money too.
I think I'll make a randomized hail bind, that says various phrases when running like "I won't go so easy next time!", and give them 10,000c or something. Hey, thats less than most fully equipped ships, so in the end you did save money. Plus, instead of you just losing money, your opponent would gain money too.
Renegade: What the heck does the definiton of "pilot" have to do with anything? For some twisted reason, you only copied the "nautical" section of the definition. I seem to recall reading, somewhere, gosh, where was it... I think NASA's home page? About the pilot of the space shuttle? Sorry to go off on you like this, but it should be blindingly obvious what I mean when I say "pilot". Trying to get into a fight over the definition is disingenuous and almost insulting.
"Star, if you run you might miss hitting the convoy... You might also come back and be able to kill of the guy guarding it. I know because it has been done. Heck, you might even just leave because you see your teammate hopping in and letting him take care of it."
These are called tactics. They are good things to allow in games, because they generate something called gameplay. Defenders can rotate as well, you know, and if I go and repair I have very little chance of catching the transport unless it gets stuck in a storm. Again, you're reaching. Just say it. Running is a tactic. Running is something people do. Running is ok.
CTC is only a convienient example. There are oodles of missions the devs can create that would make running an option, but a tactically dangerous thing to do. Missions where the defenders get XP for defending something, or someone. Isn't that the balance you are looking for?
I mean, if you disallow running, how does bounty hunting work? No one would ever get a bounty on their head because they'd never be able to run from whoever wanted it.
Please, just accept that running is part of a balanced breakfast. You can't slice it out of the game and have a game with tactical depth.
"Star, if you run you might miss hitting the convoy... You might also come back and be able to kill of the guy guarding it. I know because it has been done. Heck, you might even just leave because you see your teammate hopping in and letting him take care of it."
These are called tactics. They are good things to allow in games, because they generate something called gameplay. Defenders can rotate as well, you know, and if I go and repair I have very little chance of catching the transport unless it gets stuck in a storm. Again, you're reaching. Just say it. Running is a tactic. Running is something people do. Running is ok.
CTC is only a convienient example. There are oodles of missions the devs can create that would make running an option, but a tactically dangerous thing to do. Missions where the defenders get XP for defending something, or someone. Isn't that the balance you are looking for?
I mean, if you disallow running, how does bounty hunting work? No one would ever get a bounty on their head because they'd never be able to run from whoever wanted it.
Please, just accept that running is part of a balanced breakfast. You can't slice it out of the game and have a game with tactical depth.
You started bringing it up... reason why i gav eit and saw nowhere the things you were postulating. I only gave the nautical one since it was the easiest to apply to everything if you look at it metaphorically. (but this si the normal one: One who operates or is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight). I don't see anywhere, a point about running being allowed. Nor was I even bringing piloting up...
Running is not ok, since the gameplay you so crave will be the end of most of the fun. Why even bother having any statistics? Lets get rid of pks, kills etc since if you allow running (sinc eit improves gameplay), lets all run as soon as we fear we get into problems (and might die). Heck its a tactic so lets all do it. I wanna see what you are going to do if everybody does it and if nobody gets a kill anymore. Really I wonder... where we then talk about it being based on skill. But what I would expect is a lot of anger within game, a lot of people quitting with the game and in the end it bleeding to death. Vendetta is based on an fps and due to its roots killing will always be one of the main targets. And adding these missions will never change it since vendetta is and stays an FPS(decissionwise). Only the environment, the world, the evolution is from an rpg. Not the fightmechanics. And if they ever change to an RPG then VO will loose one of its compettetive advantages, sinc eit is this that keeps most people alive and playing and returning.
And any smart person knows that he can catch the transport if he repairs, he just needs to go forward in stead of repairing backwards... so you can wait up the person in the next sector and don't have to catch up to it...
Running is not ok, since the gameplay you so crave will be the end of most of the fun. Why even bother having any statistics? Lets get rid of pks, kills etc since if you allow running (sinc eit improves gameplay), lets all run as soon as we fear we get into problems (and might die). Heck its a tactic so lets all do it. I wanna see what you are going to do if everybody does it and if nobody gets a kill anymore. Really I wonder... where we then talk about it being based on skill. But what I would expect is a lot of anger within game, a lot of people quitting with the game and in the end it bleeding to death. Vendetta is based on an fps and due to its roots killing will always be one of the main targets. And adding these missions will never change it since vendetta is and stays an FPS(decissionwise). Only the environment, the world, the evolution is from an rpg. Not the fightmechanics. And if they ever change to an RPG then VO will loose one of its compettetive advantages, sinc eit is this that keeps most people alive and playing and returning.
And any smart person knows that he can catch the transport if he repairs, he just needs to go forward in stead of repairing backwards... so you can wait up the person in the next sector and don't have to catch up to it...
[quote]Heck its a tactic so lets all do it. I wanna see what you are going to do if everybody does it and if nobody gets a kill anymore. Really I wonder..[/quote]
There'd be a whole lot of people failing missions if that were the case. And everyone already can run, yet PKs abound. For some reason you're not engaging with my point here: running is a retreat. It's a way to salvage something from a lost fight, and perhaps fight again. If missions were meaningful (they are aiming for this according to the dev wiki) and gave XP (they already do), all the devs have to do is tailor them so that running makes completing them much harder.
The stated aim of the game was to have it be mission oriented. The past few years, due to the complete lack of missions, have been spontaneous PVP oriented. The game is moving away from everything you're basing your argument on.
There'd be a whole lot of people failing missions if that were the case. And everyone already can run, yet PKs abound. For some reason you're not engaging with my point here: running is a retreat. It's a way to salvage something from a lost fight, and perhaps fight again. If missions were meaningful (they are aiming for this according to the dev wiki) and gave XP (they already do), all the devs have to do is tailor them so that running makes completing them much harder.
The stated aim of the game was to have it be mission oriented. The past few years, due to the complete lack of missions, have been spontaneous PVP oriented. The game is moving away from everything you're basing your argument on.
But, there's still no downside to losing a fight, they'll be back in the action in less than a minute if they're any good.
Meanwhile, they're "teammates" can just boost around until their compatriot gets back.
Both situations exhibit the problem with running.
People should be aware, when ENTERING a fight, that it may be difficult to get out of it again.
As it is right now, people get killed because they're willing to chance a comeback to win. There's really very little reason to engage another pilot, unless you want to.
This is why there's no danger.
At the same time, if you make it so that ships can't reasonably run, you will also make it so that they can't reasonably travel.
So, like WoW, perhaps we need personal transports between stations. The transports would make up a good deal of NPC traffic
across monitored space (they should probably travel at about 200 m/s). Meanwhile, players can enjoy the scenery from the window of their NPC ship.
In unmonitored space, transports might be offered, but could be the victim of pirate strikes. So most responsible pilots would take their own ships in.
Meanwhile, they're "teammates" can just boost around until their compatriot gets back.
Both situations exhibit the problem with running.
People should be aware, when ENTERING a fight, that it may be difficult to get out of it again.
As it is right now, people get killed because they're willing to chance a comeback to win. There's really very little reason to engage another pilot, unless you want to.
This is why there's no danger.
At the same time, if you make it so that ships can't reasonably run, you will also make it so that they can't reasonably travel.
So, like WoW, perhaps we need personal transports between stations. The transports would make up a good deal of NPC traffic
across monitored space (they should probably travel at about 200 m/s). Meanwhile, players can enjoy the scenery from the window of their NPC ship.
In unmonitored space, transports might be offered, but could be the victim of pirate strikes. So most responsible pilots would take their own ships in.
Starfisher has said multiple times, that the mission structure should be the source of a downside to running. If you run, it should make it much more difficult, or impossible, to complete the mission.
Consider a variation of the BP mission: The *SMV Nemesis is sent into Deneb, into one of the Itani station sectors. Serco players taking the mission would accompany the Nemesis, and would try to keep the Nemesis alive for a certain length of time, say 30 minutes, while it bombards the station. If the Nemesis is still alive at the end of the mission time, then the Serco gain control of the station. Any Itani players who were homed at the station get their home station reset to Itan K-11 (Armand's Reward). So Itani players would have to choose either homing at the station under attack, so they have immediate access to the battle, but risk having their home station reset to somewhere far away. Or else they can home at a different station in Deneb, where they don't have immediate access to the battle, but won't have to travel back to Deneb if the Serco capture the station. And if the Serco do capture the station, they use the station to repair the Nemesis to 100% very quickly, and immediately start an attack on a different station in Deneb, before the Itani players who were reset to Itan have returned.
Anyway, with a mission like that, any time that a player is not active in the battle makes it more likely that their side will lose, with significant consequences (loss of a station, or loss of a Cap Ship). So if they run, there's a definite downside.
Consider a variation of the BP mission: The *SMV Nemesis is sent into Deneb, into one of the Itani station sectors. Serco players taking the mission would accompany the Nemesis, and would try to keep the Nemesis alive for a certain length of time, say 30 minutes, while it bombards the station. If the Nemesis is still alive at the end of the mission time, then the Serco gain control of the station. Any Itani players who were homed at the station get their home station reset to Itan K-11 (Armand's Reward). So Itani players would have to choose either homing at the station under attack, so they have immediate access to the battle, but risk having their home station reset to somewhere far away. Or else they can home at a different station in Deneb, where they don't have immediate access to the battle, but won't have to travel back to Deneb if the Serco capture the station. And if the Serco do capture the station, they use the station to repair the Nemesis to 100% very quickly, and immediately start an attack on a different station in Deneb, before the Itani players who were reset to Itan have returned.
Anyway, with a mission like that, any time that a player is not active in the battle makes it more likely that their side will lose, with significant consequences (loss of a station, or loss of a Cap Ship). So if they run, there's a definite downside.