/me tacks a hammer to Furball's caps-lock and shift keys. Anyone feel better?

Celebrim: I really like your well-thought-out suggestions. I truly believe that what you have proposed can restore balance to this game.

I feel that the levels of balance I've seen proposed are too drastic and risk keeping Vendetta as Quake in Space. If every ship is so "perfectly" balanced, then there will be no way to really avoid combat...nor any reason to...and I see that as a very bad thing.

In my opinion, one of the key things differentiating a RPG from Q3A is that there's a reason and a means to actively AVOID prolonged combat and a fun gameplay session available to those who don't want to fight and die all the time. (And by "avoid prolonged combat" I mean that I see being able to blow the h*ll out of someone threatening you and then run for it as a valid tactic - it's what you'd do in the real world to ensure your survival)

I do advocate some of the ships having noticeable advantages over others.

I see "balance" in the game as being good gameplay for all...not the nerfing of ships to make it a skillfest (and I think skill challenges are what the principal pro-"balance" people are leaning towards -- you knwo who you are and if I've read you wrong, I apologize).

I don't think the ships need to be balanced...things like mission systems need to be implemented first - then I feel that we'll see that the ships are *already* pretty well balanced.
For example, I personally feel the Promy's hull is justified in light of the frigate.

I think this needs to be worked with pretty soon, as it is building players who cant function using anymore than their one special ship. Personally, I like using the non-special ships - My favorites are the hornet and the warthog, but here are some examples:

The Hornet I usually configure as a heavy fighter, with quad tachyons, or mayybe dual tachs, dual sunflares. This is a pretty good setup, and would be great if the hornet had a acceptable level of manuverablility. Instead, other people choose to use the valkire, which has a MUCH better manueverability, and only 1 less port! I mean for just the sacrifice of one you get a loads better ship. This is one thing I wish would be balanced out.

One of my other loadouts is the Warthog with some heavy weapon, usually avalons, and a tach. Now this is just not enough I think. For medium manuverability I think it should at least have another small port. Lets face it, most large port weapons arent offensive except the gatling, and with one tach, its hard to even take down the bots.

I myself try to not use the specials much at all, one because they are too expensive, and two because I know that changes will happen to them, and I wanna be able to fly some of the lesser known craft. The only special I signifigantly use is the pizza cutter - Amazing ship, I think it is almost perfectly balanced, maybe, just maybe a bit too much firepower, but thats what u pay for. I use it for trading, but I love its ability to fend for its own in a firefight - I like it. Hopefully down the road in a few months we will have multiple specials for each team, and they will be ONLY for each team - none of this sc15 smuggling ship business. Once that starts happening, I think vendetta will really start to develop its storyline and personality.

Right. This is one of those wacky ideas i get every once in a while.

So here it is: Every ship has its own special ship, okay, blackmarket would be available to players if they had a certian repuation like some one stated. But that would be expensive as hell! <Idea> I think that players would have the ability to buy a certian special spy ship (each nation would have one relitivly similar) for espenoage. This ship would be able to dock at enemy stations and steal ship designs. Or parts of it. Lets say a nation wanted to steal a Serco Prommie. They get the ship designs back to their homebase, and they have 1small port and 25% less HP's than the ship is suppose to have. So you have to go back. These spy ships would have very very very low HP's so increasing the need for team work in getting the new designs.</idea>

It would also be nice if there was a way to build a custom ship in game. just an idea.

/me wanders off.

Edit: Hi my name is sheepdog and im a 1337boi. Sorry for the <></> you say anything. I just had to so it was kinda eaiser to see.

Gizmos could definitely fill the void that I'm looking for. Like I said, it's all about creating differentiation while retaining gameplay. Ships still need to be mucked about with, but the following will definitely help:

1) Gizmos. Radar gizmos. Cloak gizmos. Super-afterburner gizmos, armor gizmos, reactor gizmos, Hologram gizmos (you reflect a duplicate of your ship 40m to one side), etc.*

2) Reputation. This, believe it or not, will add a LOT to both balance and gameplay... especially RPG style gameplay. Because depending upon your reputation you will have an easier or harder time doing certain things.

3) Engine/battery/weapon/gizmo slots that can be traded (at a loss) for more of another. That is, trade 2 small weapon slots for an extra engine slot. This is just an example: the topic has been covered elsewhere. This would allow for the style of uber-specialized vessel that I personally want. I can see trading in the weapon slot and cargo slots -- and cutting the hull strength in half -- to make room for a second engine in my lil' centurion. The result = the space flea! ziiiip!

* Celebrim: didn't you have a gizmo thread at one point? If so, I suggest finding it and bumping it. If not, I nominate you to create one. But don't let that go to your head :-)

"I see "balance" in the game as being good gameplay for all...not the nerfing of ships to make it a skillfest (and I think skill challenges are what the principal pro-"balance" people are leaning towards -- you knwo who you are and if I've read you wrong, I apologize)."

Ok.. as far as the balance goes... here's another idea.. what we NEED is a check and balance system in place. IE (and this is just a BAD example but you'll get the idea) the valk can take down a maud every time BUT... the hog takes down the valk every time. The prommie takes down a rag every time BUT the hornet takes down a prommie every time. IE for every ship, there's a NATURAL counter to it.

THAT will also balance things without MUCKING with each of the ships that much.

[Edit]FYI, the reason I use caps at times is to for emphasis. IE We can't do bold text SOOO I use caps to stress certain parts of my arguement.[/Edit]

"Engine/battery/weapon/gizmo slots that can be traded (at a loss) for more of another. That is, trade 2 small weapon slots for an extra engine slot."

While I'm looking for old threads, maybe I should bump up the conversation between bkdc and myself on ship customization. It's a very detailed discussion of why '2 small weapons slots for an extra engine slot' and similar trades will probably never be balanced or even particularly interesting, but in which bkdc offered some alternative and interesting theories on semi-complete configurability. Basically his idea was 'you should get what you don't pay for'.

"Celebrim: didn't you have a gizmo thread at one point? If so, I suggest finding it and bumping it."

I can do that, though the thread is in the archives and it might just be better to recreate it.

"Ok.. as far as the balance goes... here's another idea.. what we NEED is a check and balance system in place. IE (and this is just a BAD example but you'll get the idea) the valk can take down a maud every time BUT... the hog takes down the valk every time. The prommie takes down a rag every time BUT the hornet takes down a prommie every time. IE for every ship, there's a NATURAL counter to it."


Um no, then you come down to an arcadish, 3D copy of EV. Remember watching the AI fight? You could memorize who would win from the beginning. UE Cruiser or Voinion Frigate? ;-)

Then this turns completely into an RPG and loses the FPS element. But wait, Fur, how do you propose to make one ship always counter the other? Auto-aim? (and by this I mean the auto-aim found in Rogue Spear, not V). Auto-explode? You say those are bad examples, but I get what you're saying. I think it's a bad idea. It should depend, at least in some part, on the skill of a pilot. You throw me in a Centurian vs some newbie in a Prometheus with a gatling and rockets, I'll killem with my tach (granted he doesn't run). However, give that Prom to someone like you or another vet, I'd die. Why? Well it depends, maybe you'd boost into super-close tracking range, or just rocket ram my 6500 ship. Either way, the more knowledge about tactics, the more skill you'll have, and that should translate into a one-up in the game.

I'm not against skill totally...I just think it shouldn't be the only thing in the game.

I think the key may be in raising the specs of the weak ships and not touching the strong ones - the net result would be that the ships would be just as useful against non-player elements, but not as useful against player elements. Perhaps altering which ships could have which engines would be a start. If it was easier for small ships to flit around and shoot, armor would be negated - in particular, I was thinking of the Centurion and Wraith...high-speed attack fighter and bomber.

One of the reasons why I'm so enthralled with Vendetta is because it is IMHO the first game to combine the excitement of a FPS with the intrigue of an RPG. The skill-factor should never be completely removed from combat. However, the game needs to have more than just combat.

To me, "balancing ships" means ensuring that no ship has an unfair advantage over all other ships in combat.

To me, "specializing ships" means ensuring that you can customize your ship to suit specific uses (including but not limited to combat).

The two are NOT mutually exclusive. However, someone who has specialized a ship for combat should definitely have combat advantages over a ship that has deliberately specialized itself for a specific non-combat role. That is, if you make the choice to give yourself an advantage in trading by buying gizmos and trading in weapon slots for extra cargo and maneuvering boosters (or whatever)... you would not only suck in fights but you would be completely unable to participate in a fight because you would have no weapons! So, if you actually engaged a valk in a fight, you would lose 100% of the time. However, if you had the two brain cells required to NOT engage in a fight, you could out maneuver and escape most attacks... preserving over all game playability.

The line between the skill-fest/FPS game and the specialization/RPG game is normally a hard line: black and white. But vendetta seems to be blurring that line. IMHO this "blur" is the single-most best aspect of the game, and what will make Vendetta kick serious butt on the market once it goes commercial. It is well on its way to being the best of both worlds.

/me steps off the soapbox, takes my hat off to the devs, and bows...

"To me, "balancing ships" means ensuring that no ship has an unfair advantage over all other ships in combat."

That's a bad idea. Some ships are clearly meant to be superior to other ships. Where is teamwork? I've harped about this, I know, but why must you insist that all ships be equal? They were never meant to be equal.


"However, if you had the two brain cells required to NOT engage in a fight, you could out maneuver and escape most attacks... preserving over all game playability."

Uh, after you trade out your "maneuvering thrusters" you can outmaneuver and/or escape a valk? Again, no. Trade ships are meant to be slow, relatively less protected, and vulnerable. Live with it. Get a pilot to escort you or verbally deter players. I don't want a heavy transport outrunning my valk. That's unrealistic and completely "unbalanced."

/me agrees mostly with SirCamps

Read more carefully:

I didn't say that ships shouldn't have advantages, I said "ensuring that no ship has an unfair advantage over all other ships in combat" the key word there is **unfair**. That is, no uber-ships.

"Some ships are clearly meant to be superior to other ships"

I completely disagree with this UNLESS you add "for certain things" at the end. Otherwise, you're just asking for the vorpal sword that Cele mentioned. Specialize your ship for fighting if you want, and practice your combat skills if you want combat superiority. Don't rely totally on ship configurations for that.

Likewise, if you're a non-combat player, develop a different skill set -- such as behaving nicely and creating a likable character to RP, evasive maneuvers, etc. -- in order to help you avoid combat.. because you shouldn't totally rely on ship configs for non-combat either.

"Uh, after you trade out your 'maneuvering thrusters' you can outmaneuver and/or escape a valk? Again, no. Trade ships are meant to be slow, relatively less protected, and vulnerable. Live with it. Get a pilot to escort you or verbally deter players. I don't want a heavy transport outrunning my valk. That's unrealistic and completely 'unbalanced.'"

Bull s**t. First of all, in my example I traded "weapon slots FOR extra cargo AND maneuvering boosters (or whatever)", not the other way around. And who says cargo ships are slow and cumbersome? The Malenium flacon is the perfect example of a ship (albeit a fictional one) that is a cargo ship that is VERY maneuverable. That ship, if you recall, was a smuggling ship. Traders don't have to be sitting ducks. If I were really a space trader, especially in this universe, I would ouutfit my ship for stealth and speed... and then seek more profitable runs that required smaller cargo loads.

A larger cargo vessel could certainly outrun a fighter. It has more mass and more space to add lots and lots of forward thrusters. It shouldn't be able to out-maneuver a valk ina dog-fight, but it should be able to retain enough maneuverability to be navigable at much higher top speeds.

And in specific response to "Trade ships are meant to be slow, relatively less protected, and vulnerable. Live with it. "... all I can say is: open your mind, and give it some fresh air. If Vendetta forces us to adopt the same tired RPG roles and stereotypes as other games, it will fail miserably.

Point is, nearly everyone flies a special ship. That has to be stopped.

"That's a bad idea. Some ships are clearly meant to be superior to other ships. Where is teamwork? I've harped about this, I know, but why must you insist that all ships be equal? They were never meant to be equal."

Wait a minute. Where did you get the idea that if all ships are 'equal' that there is no need for teamwork? This has to be an idea based on absolutely no experience because it has no basis in any team sport or activity I can think of.

Have any of you played organized football or basketball? Is a center better than a point gaurd or a forward? Is a defensive back better than a wide reciever or a nose gaurd or a left tackle? Are the qualities that make for a good lineman the same as those that make for a good strong safety? Of course not. Yet you would not say that because strong safeties are phyically different from centers that safeties are better than centers. Nor would you say that it is better to have a center on your team than a wide receiver. Which would you rather have? Well, you must have both if you want a complete team, and which you will choose for your team will depend on whether you have a need for a center or a wide reciever.

And I do want to point out that both the center and the point guard play the same game. You can't cope out and say 'oh this ship is better for trading and this ship is better for combat', because those are two different games. It's like comparing point gaurds and running backs. Of course they can be different but equally necessary in different games. The point here is that even in the same game it can be necessary and useful to have two radically different types of players each dominating thier respective area of the field and each through thier particular style of play thuroughly dominating or being dominated by the other.

Have any of you played Starfleet Battles? The ships employed by the Federation, the Gorn, the Romulans, the Kzinti, the Klingons, the ISD, the Hydrans, the Wyn, the Orion, the Andro, and so on and so forth are all very different in capabilities from each other. Yet, in tournament play, no one races ship is clearly superior to the others. A 'saber dancing' ship like the Klingon D7 or the ISD CA is very different in capabilities and tactics from a 'knife fighting' ship like the Gorn or Fed CA. The world championship has been won at different times by virtually every ship available - even by the Fed with thier silly photon torpedoes. Victory is decided by the application of the correct tactics against a particular foe and by a little luck, not by having 'the best ship' because any ship can beat any other ship in the right hands (though some of them have easier times against certain foes than others). If you can have that sort of balance among more than a dozen ships in a pen and paper game, I don't see any reason why you can't have that sort of balance amongst a dozen ships or a dozen weapons in Vendetta.

"Trade ships are meant to be slow, relatively less protected.."

What about couriers, smugglers, fast packet ships, clipper ships? Are all trade ships slow? What about armed merchantmen like employed by the East India Company? Need merchants always be poorly armed? Have any of you read Iain M. Banks? He envisions lots of classes of space ships which marry the principals of warship and 'commercial' vessel into a single multifunction ship.

If you take a wide reciever from (American) football, he probably won't be as great of a basketball guard or forward as he is a wide reciever, but he might nonetheless be a great athelete who can use his advantages to excel or at least compete in another arena.

Yes, but you would make your tallest man a defender, would you not? And the guy with the most air be offense, yes?

"And who says cargo ships are slow and cumbersome? The Malenium flacon is the perfect example of a ship (albeit a fictional one) that is a cargo ship that is VERY maneuverable"

If I recall correctly, TIE-fighters were making strafing runs on the Millenium Falcon. Yes?



"Wait a minute. Where did you get the idea that if all ships are 'equal' that there is no need for teamwork? This has to be an idea based on absolutely no experience because it has no basis in any team sport or activity I can think of."

Think combat. The A-10 Warthog is primarily used as a ground-support aircraft. It is built around a 30mm cannon that can deal effectively with both soft and hard-skinned vehicles. However, if a lucky MIG pilot finds one of these things, the A-10 is more than a sitting duck, it's the proverbial "broad side of a barn." You would use a fighter (F15 or F16) to provide air cover for your A-10. Want to be able to defend yourself from air attacks? Fly an F-18, which carries both a 20mm cannon, and several hardpoints for A2A and A2G ordinance.

I am talking about different roles. It seems people are complaining that their Centurian can't take down a Valk, or at least something to that effect. As he says:

"I completely disagree with this UNLESS you add "for certain things" at the end. Otherwise, you're just asking for the vorpal sword that Cele mentioned. Specialize your ship for fighting if you want, and practice your combat skills if you want combat superiority. Don't rely totally on ship configurations for that."


Sorry pal, bottom line: Some ships ARE superior to other ships. Take the Valkyrie. It has a good hull, very fast maneuverability, as much cargo space as an EC-88, and more small hardpoints than any ship other than the Hornet. THAT is superior to: the Centurion, for warfare; most small ships for trading; any other ship for acceleration and turning. It IS superior and is meant to be. Maybe you're complaining that your Vulture or Centurion can't take one down in 1v1? Get a friend to help. Teamwork relies, even in Celebrim's example (actually, especially!) on roles. Different ships play different roles. A valk pilot might be hesistant to take on a Prom, and very well so. However, a Prom would think twice before attacking a couple of Ragnoroks, their firepower would vastly outmatch his.

"Trade ships are meant to be slow, relatively less protected.."

Hmm how bout a Q-ship of WWII? or any of the OTHER types of freighters mentioned here already?

"Sorry pal, bottom line: Some ships ARE superior to other ships. "

That's fine.. what you SEEM to be missing is that all we're asking for is that there NOT be one (or two or three) uber-ships. What then happens is that everyone gravates to those two or three configs and all the other configs never get used. That's REAL balance. IE no ONE SHIP overpowers everything...

but in my opinion the specials "god curse their names" are the same as in a football game the beckhams of their team. I know why would you chose for anybody else if you have Beckham , But still some don't have a beckham but have a zidane or a ronaldo or ...

So like everywhere , if every nation his own special balanced ship "balanced against the other fighters and against the other specials".

But for the rest, they make for 1 of the characteristics why you would play for 1 race and not for another.

So please leave them in the game, only make them not accessible to everyone. And the problem is solved.

Besides if you give all the ships 1 specific objective and make for every nation 1 special, that is only minorly better in that specific branch, then it will be all good

cheers

SirCamps: That was well... muddled.

I'm talking about different roles. Center, point gaurd - they are different roles. Ground attack, air superiority - those are different roles. Centurian, Valkyrie - those are not different roles.

It's one thing to say, a air superiority fighter can destroy a ground attack fighter, which can destroy the tank, which can destroy the infantry that gaurd the base that protects the air superiority fighter. That's all well and good. It's not so interesting to say, my Valkyrie is better at everything than your Centurian and Vulture are.

Bottom line, some ships _are_ superior to others. You think we are stupid? This whole thread is about that bottom line. The bottom line is WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT MAKES FOR A VERY GOOD GAME. Right now you have a game in which only about three ships make even the most remote sense in a combat role: the Valk, the Prom, and the Rag. Of those three, by far the most powerful and versital is the Prom and eventually everyone is going to be forced to realize that and all but the most proud will fly a Prom and the few too proud to do so will eventually leave.

I know no other way to say this but be blunt. It's ludicrous to talk about the role of the Centurian, or the Vulture, or the Warthog, or the Hornet being to encourage teamwork. In a team, the Centurian, the Vulture, the Warthog, and the Hornet are _THE WEAK LINKS IN THE TEAM_ and will be specifically targeted by me (in my far superior Valkyrie) as such regardless of the skill of who happens to be flying them. Yes, even a pilot like Arolte. A pilot of a Vulture is trying to fulfill the same role as a Valkyrie in a by far across the board inferior craft. If a pilot of a Centurian wants to contribute to his team, the best thing he can do is get in a bus and trade until he has enough money till he has a Marauder, then trade until he has enough money for a couple of Proms. Until he does that, he's the equivalent of an out-of-shape player who is letting down the team.

"However, a Prom would think twice before attacking a couple of Ragnoroks, their firepower would vastly outmatch his."

Well, duh. Any pilot ought to think twice before going up against 2:1 odds. By definition, any pilot who can do so is one of vastly superior skill. But I'm not so sure that a Prom vs. two Vultures is nearly as daunting as 2:1 ought to be, and even a Prom vs. two Rag's wouldn't daunt me nearly as much as Prom vs. two Valks. Rag vs. two Proms? Forget about it unless the Prom pilots are utterly clueless newbies with subpar weapon loads.