Forums » General
Hi, my name is Rabid Panda, I'm a sniper. I thought that the rail gun was just what Vendetta needed to get some sniper groups going. With the new setup, you can have 4, but they will only do 4400 damage. That isn't enough to even kill a bus. It's not fair to use snipers that you keep denying us of our natural habits. Are there any future plans for snipers? Any way of making it possible in game any time soon? Please, onegai.
I am a closet sniper as well. I am peaceful and non-affiliated with any major groups, but I *might* be tempted to snipe some people if I had a long-range (and effective) sniper gun.
-Jean Starwind
-Jean Starwind
I am also a natural sniper, being called "Recon Sniper" in all FPS games I play. I miss the days when a flag capper's best friend was a quad-rail-gun outfit. Able to do 8800 damage in one shot, most pursuers learned how good xithricite tasted. I have not yet tried 3.2.2, however, and hope that I will not have to give up my addiction. :(
Hi, my name is........
Hi, my name is........
While the traditional railgun concept is fun to use for an experienced player, it kind of makes it un-fun for the person on the receiving end. Quake 3 is an excellent example. Fighting one of the best railgunners in the game gets boring fast, especially on "The Longest Yard." For those who have played the game, you'll know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about constantly dying from one-shot-one-kill weapons, with little to no chance of escape (since space, after all, provides little to no cover).
During 3.2.0 I actually enjoyed the railgun a lot. But sadly that's all I ever used during that time. Kills were a matter of pointing and shooting (EVEN while boosting). While it was fun for me, it wasn't fun for the victim. After 3.2.1 came around, the railgun was dropped by many players, including me. To my surprise I actually thought gameplay was a lot better than 3.2.0, without the insane railguns that is. A LOT of the battles were in fact very balanced. At least until the suicidal Prometheus bombers with avalons showed up. Then it just became ridiculous. Then 3.2.2 steps to the plate. The railgun, while improved from 3.2.1, still remains as a non-one-shot-one-kill weapon. Which is a good thing, IMO.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is, the game should be friendly to players with a wide range of skills. Having a one-shot-one-kill uber precise weapon, or a nuke with an insane proximity detonator, is just a recipe for disaster.
During 3.2.0 I actually enjoyed the railgun a lot. But sadly that's all I ever used during that time. Kills were a matter of pointing and shooting (EVEN while boosting). While it was fun for me, it wasn't fun for the victim. After 3.2.1 came around, the railgun was dropped by many players, including me. To my surprise I actually thought gameplay was a lot better than 3.2.0, without the insane railguns that is. A LOT of the battles were in fact very balanced. At least until the suicidal Prometheus bombers with avalons showed up. Then it just became ridiculous. Then 3.2.2 steps to the plate. The railgun, while improved from 3.2.1, still remains as a non-one-shot-one-kill weapon. Which is a good thing, IMO.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is, the game should be friendly to players with a wide range of skills. Having a one-shot-one-kill uber precise weapon, or a nuke with an insane proximity detonator, is just a recipe for disaster.
I posted a semi-rant in this thread on this topic.
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=1303
I agree with Arolte that the quad railgun was too powerful, and that in general the game play is better without it. But I also agree with Panda that it was a shame to have lost the gun. My understanding is that the 3.2.2 railgun does 1100 damage and costs 110 energy. Pardon me if I also don't see this as a step in the right direction.
The railgun had two basic problems. It was the only effective energy efficient weapon in the game, and thus was the only weapon that could be specialized to the extent of using that weapon and only that weapon successfully on any ship with more than two weapon slots. Part of that problem wasn't with the railgun at all but that the rest of the weapons were really weak in some area - either too energy inefficient or too limited in ammo or too slow or some combination thereof. Part of that problem was simply that thier were ships in existance (principally the Hornet which is now falling out of favor because it needs to specialize to be effective) that could specialize to a high degree and this was the first time we had such a thing. And part of that problem was that 10 energy per shot was indeed to little of a penalty and made triples and quads too easy. I dare say that though the rail was clearly the best weapon, it wasn't nearly so clear that it was the best weapon for a Centurian's single weapon slot.
The other problem with the rail was its first strike capability, which Arolte rightly cites as a potential problem with any 'sniper weapon'. If in the hands of a reasonably competant sniper it is impossible to avoid getting hit and thereby destroyed, the whole game suffers. So the other big problem I had with the weapon is that it did more than 2000 damage. Too many ships have hull points totals that are multiples of 2000. So multiple rail guns tended to kill many ships with single hits, before the target could respond evasively or otherwise.
But for all that, the railgun was a very limited weapon. While it was lethal at range, it was very hard to employ against a fast moving target at short range, because it depended on a very steady hand to use and a rapidly rotating ship had a hard time landing a shot. At close range even before the nerf, I found rockets to be a far more effective weapon. After the nerf, there wasn't even a contest. The railgun was also preminantly a skill weapon. You couldn't just hold the trigger down and hope to kill something. You really had to aim. It wasn't that hard to aim, but it was darn hard to hit a barrel rolling target with it. And lastly, it tended to run out of ammo in a hurry, leaving flag cappers armed with rails weaponless if all they had were rails.
For those reasons I support trying a railgun at 45 energy and roughly 1900 damage. We can always incrementally decrease the weapons effectiveness if it still proves to much, but nerfing the weapon until noone uses it (as we have done) does not play test the weapon or gather any data. All we have done is created a rather unusably large bracket which now involves TWO attributes which could hardly be more widely separated (somewhere between 10 and 200 energy and somewhere between 1100 and 2100 damage, geez) in which we can say with reasonable confidence a balanced weapon exists.
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=1303
I agree with Arolte that the quad railgun was too powerful, and that in general the game play is better without it. But I also agree with Panda that it was a shame to have lost the gun. My understanding is that the 3.2.2 railgun does 1100 damage and costs 110 energy. Pardon me if I also don't see this as a step in the right direction.
The railgun had two basic problems. It was the only effective energy efficient weapon in the game, and thus was the only weapon that could be specialized to the extent of using that weapon and only that weapon successfully on any ship with more than two weapon slots. Part of that problem wasn't with the railgun at all but that the rest of the weapons were really weak in some area - either too energy inefficient or too limited in ammo or too slow or some combination thereof. Part of that problem was simply that thier were ships in existance (principally the Hornet which is now falling out of favor because it needs to specialize to be effective) that could specialize to a high degree and this was the first time we had such a thing. And part of that problem was that 10 energy per shot was indeed to little of a penalty and made triples and quads too easy. I dare say that though the rail was clearly the best weapon, it wasn't nearly so clear that it was the best weapon for a Centurian's single weapon slot.
The other problem with the rail was its first strike capability, which Arolte rightly cites as a potential problem with any 'sniper weapon'. If in the hands of a reasonably competant sniper it is impossible to avoid getting hit and thereby destroyed, the whole game suffers. So the other big problem I had with the weapon is that it did more than 2000 damage. Too many ships have hull points totals that are multiples of 2000. So multiple rail guns tended to kill many ships with single hits, before the target could respond evasively or otherwise.
But for all that, the railgun was a very limited weapon. While it was lethal at range, it was very hard to employ against a fast moving target at short range, because it depended on a very steady hand to use and a rapidly rotating ship had a hard time landing a shot. At close range even before the nerf, I found rockets to be a far more effective weapon. After the nerf, there wasn't even a contest. The railgun was also preminantly a skill weapon. You couldn't just hold the trigger down and hope to kill something. You really had to aim. It wasn't that hard to aim, but it was darn hard to hit a barrel rolling target with it. And lastly, it tended to run out of ammo in a hurry, leaving flag cappers armed with rails weaponless if all they had were rails.
For those reasons I support trying a railgun at 45 energy and roughly 1900 damage. We can always incrementally decrease the weapons effectiveness if it still proves to much, but nerfing the weapon until noone uses it (as we have done) does not play test the weapon or gather any data. All we have done is created a rather unusably large bracket which now involves TWO attributes which could hardly be more widely separated (somewhere between 10 and 200 energy and somewhere between 1100 and 2100 damage, geez) in which we can say with reasonable confidence a balanced weapon exists.
I agree with Celebrim. I'd like to personally see the rail gun at around say 1500 damage and about 65 - 75 energy.
furball: I'd be at least willing to try that. I'm not so arrogant as to think I've hit upon the right numbers on the first try or that there is just one right way to do it. But I think it ought to be perfectly clear to everyone that 200 energy and 2100 damage wasn't even close, and the new change brings back the quad and thereby enhances the weapons ability to specialize but it doesn't improve any other tangible aspect of the weapon like energy efficiency, accuracy, or damage per second. Indeed, the damage per second of the rail gun was already low for a small weapon, and this is now really really low.
At 1 shot per 1.6 seconds, 1100 damage is equivalent to being able to get about one shot off in a tacyon every 1 second. Imagine how long therefore it would take to take down a Promy with a single rail firing continiously even if every shot hit (perfect accuracy). I think the weapon has lost therefore nearly as much as it gained.
At 1 shot per 1.6 seconds, 1100 damage is equivalent to being able to get about one shot off in a tacyon every 1 second. Imagine how long therefore it would take to take down a Promy with a single rail firing continiously even if every shot hit (perfect accuracy). I think the weapon has lost therefore nearly as much as it gained.
Idea!:
Nerf the rail gun!
Energy use, 50
dmg, 500
But wait!!!
Charged dmg, 2200
Max charge, 160ish
It makes sence that you have to charge it.
Nerf the rail gun!
Energy use, 50
dmg, 500
But wait!!!
Charged dmg, 2200
Max charge, 160ish
It makes sence that you have to charge it.
Don't we already have a charged cannon?
yes we do.
This will be much faster to charge and you have ammo, so this isn't a charged cannon replacement, this is to let you have 4 on a hornet and be able to reach 2k dmg each, the charge will be fast but enough to take a good 3 seconds, and 2 second for reloading, you can either do 500 dmg in 2 seconds or 2200 dmg in 5 seconds. remember ammo is a pain. Maybe the ammo will be choped in half though.
SL: Even if the weapon you are envisioning is a pretty interesting weapon, it seems to me to be a pretty extreme set of changes in the behavior of the original weapon. Why don't we balance this weapon before creating new ones?
In general, I agree that charging a weapon is a pretty good tradeoff for any weapon that has a significant first strike issue (think the 'locks' that have to be achieved with most quality homing weapons). But it is a pretty severe handicap in use especially for a non-homing weapon. Maybe we could save the idea for a large version of the railgun, say a 'heavy railgun' or a true 'gauss cannon'. For one thing, large slots are a little rarer and we could risk a much heavier sniper rifle with a large slot restriction than in a small slot because it would be harder to specialize.
Ok, hmmm...
How about this 'reach out and touch you' weapon.
Heavy Rail Gun (L)
Velocity: 500 m/s
Max Range: 2000m
Damage: 2600
Energy: 110*
Cycle Rate: 2 seconds (charges)
*Special: Energy must be paid (at 55 energy/second for at least two seconds) before a shot can be fired. If trigger released before full energy is spent, energy is wasted. Fires when trigger is released.
In general, I agree that charging a weapon is a pretty good tradeoff for any weapon that has a significant first strike issue (think the 'locks' that have to be achieved with most quality homing weapons). But it is a pretty severe handicap in use especially for a non-homing weapon. Maybe we could save the idea for a large version of the railgun, say a 'heavy railgun' or a true 'gauss cannon'. For one thing, large slots are a little rarer and we could risk a much heavier sniper rifle with a large slot restriction than in a small slot because it would be harder to specialize.
Ok, hmmm...
How about this 'reach out and touch you' weapon.
Heavy Rail Gun (L)
Velocity: 500 m/s
Max Range: 2000m
Damage: 2600
Energy: 110*
Cycle Rate: 2 seconds (charges)
*Special: Energy must be paid (at 55 energy/second for at least two seconds) before a shot can be fired. If trigger released before full energy is spent, energy is wasted. Fires when trigger is released.
Sniper weapons have no place in a game with noncombatants. They work in games like Quake because in those games you always have to assume that you're under attack. In a game like Vendetta, you wouldn't even know that there's enemies in the area until you're already dead.
And having the weapon nerfed so that it's no longer capable of one-shot kills pretty much makes it useless, since with its slow reload rate and no auto-targetting, you're unlikely to get a second shot. I say take the railgun out of the game completely until warfare is implemented, and then make it illegal to carry on any civilian vessel. Same with Avalons.
And having the weapon nerfed so that it's no longer capable of one-shot kills pretty much makes it useless, since with its slow reload rate and no auto-targetting, you're unlikely to get a second shot. I say take the railgun out of the game completely until warfare is implemented, and then make it illegal to carry on any civilian vessel. Same with Avalons.
Avalons are already dead, in case you didn't notice.
I say we don't pull any weapons at all.
I say we don't pull any weapons at all.
Drooling Iguana, I disagree with you. We are at war. And if you are NOT aware of your situation around you... then you deserve to die IMNSHO.
And avalons aren't "dead" per se. THEY do still work... just are much more difficult to use on normal ships.
And avalons aren't "dead" per se. THEY do still work... just are much more difficult to use on normal ships.
You also forgot to mention that vendetta has no one shot kill zone. No head shots, the differnt damage ares on the ship are so hard to hit right that it's almost impossible. When I'm shooting at unskilled players they think "Ooooook, some guy named 'Rabid Panda' just shot me and I went down 10% damage, time to run", more experienced players think "that bitch has no energy now, time to die punk ass" I would like to take that experienced player down before he gets so me, that's not going to happen, I have only a few choices since he can still see me on his radar and knows right where I am. I and try to run with my leftover 100 energy, or I can sit here and wait for a battery to rechage and try to take him down before I feel his fist of wrath. With a one shot kill zone of the ship, I could have just lined up my shot and taken him down, now I'm pretty much maked dead no matter what I do.
We're not at war. We've fought no battles, gained and lost no territory, captured or lost no resources. Pirates are not soldiers. Neither are traders or bot-hunters. Until a system is implemented in which the nations can gain control of territories through military force, and until the territores controlled by your nation start to have some effect on the individual player, then warfare is impossible. There can be feuds at times, in which someone believes that they've been wronged by a member of a specific nation and takes it out on all members of that nation, but that is not warfare. Most of the time, we're all simply acting in our own interests.
IMHO, it's good now. Why should we have 1 hit KO weapons? Flag caps would be impossible (i know it's gonan go sometime, but hey, someoen SHOULD take it's place later on) As would trading.. "HAHAH! i'm about to dock mr. icarus! ahahah! you cant--"
BOOOOOOM
"WTF YOU PANSY C*****N%^&*$*$%^&#$%^#%%%^&#$% MOTHER ^&*(^r"
BOOOOOOM
"WTF YOU PANSY C*****N%^&*$*$%^&#$%^#%%%^&#$% MOTHER ^&*(^r"
DI: I'm not entirely sure how you drew the conclusion that this game had non-combatants.
It's pretty obvious that not everyone in the game is going around looking for a fight. Many are traders, which mostly involves travelling from one sector to the next, which is pretty hard to do if you're constantly turning and weaving out of fear that one of the non-allied players in the sector might be carrying a one-shot-kill weapon.It should be possible to escape from a sneak attack. If said attack is over as quickly as it's begun, then it's just annoying. Sniper weapons may find a role in military combat, but until military combat is implemented, they'll either be too strong or useless. They cannot be balanced in the current Vendetta framework.