Forums » General
____________________________
Here's my suggestion for the 'flares: FOUR rockets per tube. It's the cheapest system for a reason, and if you want more ammo, you should get a better rocket system. Can't fit it on your figher? Too bad. You're a fighter, not a gunship.
____________________________
That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. I'd support it.
Here's my suggestion for the 'flares: FOUR rockets per tube. It's the cheapest system for a reason, and if you want more ammo, you should get a better rocket system. Can't fit it on your figher? Too bad. You're a fighter, not a gunship.
____________________________
That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. I'd support it.
/me votes for the four-rockets-plan
Keep the screamers the way they are, then they have a MAJOR advantage (you know, you can actually shoot some without running out of ammo after blowing up the first ship)
Keep the screamers the way they are, then they have a MAJOR advantage (you know, you can actually shoot some without running out of ammo after blowing up the first ship)
Here's my suggestion for the 'flares: FOUR rockets per tube. It's the cheapest system for a reason, and if you want more ammo, you should get a better rocket system. Can't fit it on your figher? Too bad. You're a fighter, not a gunship.
So far I've played this game for a few days at various times of the day - and I've only seen 2 different ships used by other players, name the Vulture and something I assume is this "Valk" everyone keeps on about.
Similarly I've probably only seen 2 different weapons in use outside home-sectors (1-6). One I recognize as the Sunflare and the other is some blue energi-weapon.
At the same time, I hear alot about balancing the game, but this mostly seem to boil down to whether the Vulture or the "Valk" has the upper hand, and whether sunflares are too powerfull. For the latter, yes - I've tried them, and they are :) For the former, I would say that something is wrong if everyone are using (the same 2) fighters. The term SpaceQuake (used elsewhere) seem quite appropiate! Personally I fly around in a weaponless Wraith just for the heck of it. I'm no fighter and have no intention of being one but with the current options in this game I am the one at a loss.
Several things could be done to "rectify" this (I use the term lightly, because it is my impression that most players prefere SpaceQuaking), but the most simple one would be to not refer to Vendetta as an MMORPG(1) but instead as an FPS (MMOSQ?).
Another option would be to make heavier ships be able to at least take more than 1 hit from most fighters (unless we are talking about using one-shot torpedos as in WWII). Even in larger ships it has taken as little as 30 second for me to be shot to pieces by whoever is sitting outside my latest home-station.
Also with all this talk about cooler weapons effects and in-space shock-waves, I would think that the Devs would at least consider what direction they want the game to take. A game like Quake(2) got sold by straight action, but from what I gather, games like Entropia(3) managed to get backing by diversity and options, something I find sadly lacking in Vendetta. Trying to sit in between the two chairs will only result in failure (at least initially.) I know that there will be a basic mission-based option presented soon, and that this will more focus along abit, but how about even simple market-powers? If making sunflares requires a set of materials, what happens when the no-one does cargo-runs?
Finally, I will hope that the "reputation"-thingy being implemented is set so that killing players outclassed to some degree can have a negative effect - at least it might reduce the newbie-killing by 1/year? Call it an honor-system or whateverm but when I see myself killed off by someone with a score at 10x myself and similar kill-rate I cannot help wonder what he/she was thinking (besides "yay - easy prey")
So, in total I guess my curiosity is about what direction the game is going in ...
Cheers,
/G
1: http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=help
2: http://www.idsoftware.com/
3: https://www.project-entropia.com/Index.ajp
Similarly I've probably only seen 2 different weapons in use outside home-sectors (1-6). One I recognize as the Sunflare and the other is some blue energi-weapon.
At the same time, I hear alot about balancing the game, but this mostly seem to boil down to whether the Vulture or the "Valk" has the upper hand, and whether sunflares are too powerfull. For the latter, yes - I've tried them, and they are :) For the former, I would say that something is wrong if everyone are using (the same 2) fighters. The term SpaceQuake (used elsewhere) seem quite appropiate! Personally I fly around in a weaponless Wraith just for the heck of it. I'm no fighter and have no intention of being one but with the current options in this game I am the one at a loss.
Several things could be done to "rectify" this (I use the term lightly, because it is my impression that most players prefere SpaceQuaking), but the most simple one would be to not refer to Vendetta as an MMORPG(1) but instead as an FPS (MMOSQ?).
Another option would be to make heavier ships be able to at least take more than 1 hit from most fighters (unless we are talking about using one-shot torpedos as in WWII). Even in larger ships it has taken as little as 30 second for me to be shot to pieces by whoever is sitting outside my latest home-station.
Also with all this talk about cooler weapons effects and in-space shock-waves, I would think that the Devs would at least consider what direction they want the game to take. A game like Quake(2) got sold by straight action, but from what I gather, games like Entropia(3) managed to get backing by diversity and options, something I find sadly lacking in Vendetta. Trying to sit in between the two chairs will only result in failure (at least initially.) I know that there will be a basic mission-based option presented soon, and that this will more focus along abit, but how about even simple market-powers? If making sunflares requires a set of materials, what happens when the no-one does cargo-runs?
Finally, I will hope that the "reputation"-thingy being implemented is set so that killing players outclassed to some degree can have a negative effect - at least it might reduce the newbie-killing by 1/year? Call it an honor-system or whateverm but when I see myself killed off by someone with a score at 10x myself and similar kill-rate I cannot help wonder what he/she was thinking (besides "yay - easy prey")
So, in total I guess my curiosity is about what direction the game is going in ...
Cheers,
/G
1: http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=help
2: http://www.idsoftware.com/
3: https://www.project-entropia.com/Index.ajp
Well, I would fly along in a marauder, but I'm afraid of losing all the money if I get killed.
But seriously, balancing the heavies has been talked about for some time. The Vult and Valk get the most flight time simply because they're the fastest, most agile ships. It's easier to get from place to place and easier to dodge when you're fired upon.
The agility also makes them all but invincible to the vast majority of heavy ship pilots (anyone who says you don't have to be unusually talented to fight a vult in a hornet is just plain wrong.) Celebrim has often said something I agree about, basically, the extent to which agility provides an advantage in combat needs to be tweaked. Now how do we tweak it? That is the question.
But seriously, balancing the heavies has been talked about for some time. The Vult and Valk get the most flight time simply because they're the fastest, most agile ships. It's easier to get from place to place and easier to dodge when you're fired upon.
The agility also makes them all but invincible to the vast majority of heavy ship pilots (anyone who says you don't have to be unusually talented to fight a vult in a hornet is just plain wrong.) Celebrim has often said something I agree about, basically, the extent to which agility provides an advantage in combat needs to be tweaked. Now how do we tweak it? That is the question.
GThang, you're definitely not the first to raises these points, and probably not the last. I'll boil it down:
Valkyrie vs Vulture: The Valkyrie has one more weapon slot (3 to 2) and more speed and acceleration. The Vulture is much, much harder to hit, due to its very, very small profile and silhouette.
I have argued and whined and begged about giving heavier ships much more health, but it has been universally disliked. I've suggested giving the Prometheus back it's 28,000 health and giving the Ragnarok 35,000 - 40,000, but no one likes the idea. :(
The two weapons you see are Sunflares and the Gauss cannon. I'd agree, that for their current damage, Sunflares have too much ammo per tube. Cutting the ammo in half, in my opinion would solve the problem. Likewise, most people agree that the Gauss cannon is a little too powerful as well. Whether you slightly lower the damage, the fire rate, or the velocity, it would be better.
I myself am also disappointed about the attitude of players in the game. Even longtime veterans who used to be on the light side of the force have taken to PKing. I had a newbie char in a bus last night and got blown up several times by a longtime gold-now-red vet who said he "pks so deal with it." The missions and reputation systems will do a bit of good, as well as the creation of legitimate, bona fide police guilds. All I can say is hang in there, and put some weapons on that Wraith, just to stay alive (try Adv gatling + 2 Sunflare, Locust Swarms + 2 Sunflare, prox mines + 2 Sunflare.... you get the idea).
- Currently without an in-game name
Valkyrie vs Vulture: The Valkyrie has one more weapon slot (3 to 2) and more speed and acceleration. The Vulture is much, much harder to hit, due to its very, very small profile and silhouette.
I have argued and whined and begged about giving heavier ships much more health, but it has been universally disliked. I've suggested giving the Prometheus back it's 28,000 health and giving the Ragnarok 35,000 - 40,000, but no one likes the idea. :(
The two weapons you see are Sunflares and the Gauss cannon. I'd agree, that for their current damage, Sunflares have too much ammo per tube. Cutting the ammo in half, in my opinion would solve the problem. Likewise, most people agree that the Gauss cannon is a little too powerful as well. Whether you slightly lower the damage, the fire rate, or the velocity, it would be better.
I myself am also disappointed about the attitude of players in the game. Even longtime veterans who used to be on the light side of the force have taken to PKing. I had a newbie char in a bus last night and got blown up several times by a longtime gold-now-red vet who said he "pks so deal with it." The missions and reputation systems will do a bit of good, as well as the creation of legitimate, bona fide police guilds. All I can say is hang in there, and put some weapons on that Wraith, just to stay alive (try Adv gatling + 2 Sunflare, Locust Swarms + 2 Sunflare, prox mines + 2 Sunflare.... you get the idea).
- Currently without an in-game name
>I have argued and whined and begged about giving heavier ships much more health, but it has been universally disliked. I've suggested giving the Prometheus back it's 28,000 health and giving the Ragnarok 35,000 - 40,000, but no one likes the idea. :(
Prom and Rag more health? Yeah, but a rag having more than a prom O.o?
>The missions and reputation systems will do a bit of good, as well as the creation of legitimate, bona fide police guilds.
Anyone who wants to do that, the ICOJ-laws are a good 'guideline'.
Prom and Rag more health? Yeah, but a rag having more than a prom O.o?
>The missions and reputation systems will do a bit of good, as well as the creation of legitimate, bona fide police guilds.
Anyone who wants to do that, the ICOJ-laws are a good 'guideline'.
GThang, you do realize that Vendetta Test is NOT a MMORPG, it's very carefully never called one on this site. It will eventually become Vendetta which will be a MMORPG.
As for balancing the problem is trying to balance things across the board in a number of different situations. Ships that many people think of as 'useless' are actually really overly powerful in some situations. Take for example a fight between a dual gauss (the popular energy weapon) vulture and a gemini/advanced gat (homming missile)/(high auto aim energy weapon) warthog. Most people reading will assume that the vulture will win such a fight with out too much of a struggle, but that's only true assuming both pilots are reasonably skilled. If both the pilots are very new to the game the one in the vulture won't stand a chance since they haven't learned how to avoid homming missiles, or the adv gat.
Imagine if they balanced the homming weapons so that the most skilled pilots who dodge them over 95% of the time (regaurdless of the shooter's skill) thought they were a powerful weapon. What would that do to newbs who can't avoid the homers 5% of the time?
Other weapons are better against different targets, for example the tach is far more effective at taking out large targets than the gauss due to it's effecient energy consumption, and high level of damage per second, but since most people are flying quick fighters it's best for their opponents to usegauss for their high auto aim and damage per hit (seeing as there are less chances for extended fire).
Agility is the hardest thing to balance because its value changes so much with skill. A skilled enough user, in a valk (far more skillful than any human could attain and more skillful than the AI ever will) could beat an equally skilled user, in a vult, even is the valk only had 1 hull, and 1 weapon. This is because they could dodge everthing shot at them and use their acceleration advantage to attain positions the vult couldn't dodge from. Does this mean that the valk would be more balanced with just 1 hull point? No ofcourse not because no players are able to take THAT much advantage of the acceleration difference.
Remember that the test is constantly changing. The weapons and ships that are popular today were not always frequently used and infact they may have become popular not because they were better, but because they were different. Looking at the gauss part of the reason that it's so widely used is because it is very effective at hitting barrel rolling. But why is barrel rolling popular? Because it's very effective at dodging tachs which were not long ago the 'best' energy weapon, so if people had learned to dodge gauss very well before learning how to barrel roll, would everyone be packing tachions right now?
So I've spent a fair amount of time rambling, I hope I've given new ideas and thoughts to someone; at the very least I've rehashed some thoughts for myself.
(PS Camps I completely agree that the prom needs some improvements, but doing large changes all at once generally gives less relyable feed back, and is more likely to through things out of balance. Try asking for a 10% hull increase, and then another if it's still neccisary, etc until it's well balanced. If you just give over 2/3rds again as much hull everyone will start using it regaurdless of wether or not it's actually bettter than the current ships and soon people will be yelling that it needs to be completely nerfed. People will get much more heated about something being too powerful than not powerful enough.)
As for balancing the problem is trying to balance things across the board in a number of different situations. Ships that many people think of as 'useless' are actually really overly powerful in some situations. Take for example a fight between a dual gauss (the popular energy weapon) vulture and a gemini/advanced gat (homming missile)/(high auto aim energy weapon) warthog. Most people reading will assume that the vulture will win such a fight with out too much of a struggle, but that's only true assuming both pilots are reasonably skilled. If both the pilots are very new to the game the one in the vulture won't stand a chance since they haven't learned how to avoid homming missiles, or the adv gat.
Imagine if they balanced the homming weapons so that the most skilled pilots who dodge them over 95% of the time (regaurdless of the shooter's skill) thought they were a powerful weapon. What would that do to newbs who can't avoid the homers 5% of the time?
Other weapons are better against different targets, for example the tach is far more effective at taking out large targets than the gauss due to it's effecient energy consumption, and high level of damage per second, but since most people are flying quick fighters it's best for their opponents to usegauss for their high auto aim and damage per hit (seeing as there are less chances for extended fire).
Agility is the hardest thing to balance because its value changes so much with skill. A skilled enough user, in a valk (far more skillful than any human could attain and more skillful than the AI ever will) could beat an equally skilled user, in a vult, even is the valk only had 1 hull, and 1 weapon. This is because they could dodge everthing shot at them and use their acceleration advantage to attain positions the vult couldn't dodge from. Does this mean that the valk would be more balanced with just 1 hull point? No ofcourse not because no players are able to take THAT much advantage of the acceleration difference.
Remember that the test is constantly changing. The weapons and ships that are popular today were not always frequently used and infact they may have become popular not because they were better, but because they were different. Looking at the gauss part of the reason that it's so widely used is because it is very effective at hitting barrel rolling. But why is barrel rolling popular? Because it's very effective at dodging tachs which were not long ago the 'best' energy weapon, so if people had learned to dodge gauss very well before learning how to barrel roll, would everyone be packing tachions right now?
So I've spent a fair amount of time rambling, I hope I've given new ideas and thoughts to someone; at the very least I've rehashed some thoughts for myself.
(PS Camps I completely agree that the prom needs some improvements, but doing large changes all at once generally gives less relyable feed back, and is more likely to through things out of balance. Try asking for a 10% hull increase, and then another if it's still neccisary, etc until it's well balanced. If you just give over 2/3rds again as much hull everyone will start using it regaurdless of wether or not it's actually bettter than the current ships and soon people will be yelling that it needs to be completely nerfed. People will get much more heated about something being too powerful than not powerful enough.)
Yikes - this WAY too quickly became a matter of changing ships...
@Eldrad:
True, the about page says that this is an engine test of a (hopefully) coming MMORPG, but in that case I will still question the decision to focus so surely on space <b>combat</b>. By doing this, the Developers, Guild Software, risk setting the community up to a Space Quake (Please note that I say "risk" - this might also have an altogether different ending)
The focus on the 2-3 fighter-classes and 1-2 longhaulers is not the actual problem in my eyes, but merely a symptom of the game being quite far from finished. When they propose questionable physics as the next 'improvement' (The concussion-effect from explosions) I shudder to think how they will sell this as a future MMORPG (unless they are hiding some things from the test, such as trade-systems, supply/demand controlled pricing and station-inventory/production.) If people were too busy working, there would be less pirates, and therefore fewer fighters in play (In Vendetta-terminology, less Grief.) Simply making slow ships more sturdy, or small-port missile-packs smaller is not the cure :)
@SirCamp:
I did add weapons to it, though not sunflares (c'mon everyone, lets NOT use sunflares?). I still died at the first sight of someone with a few times my own score, since I could not turn quickly enuff/predict his next move correctly (lack of experience playing Quake I guess ;)
/G
@Eldrad:
True, the about page says that this is an engine test of a (hopefully) coming MMORPG, but in that case I will still question the decision to focus so surely on space <b>combat</b>. By doing this, the Developers, Guild Software, risk setting the community up to a Space Quake (Please note that I say "risk" - this might also have an altogether different ending)
The focus on the 2-3 fighter-classes and 1-2 longhaulers is not the actual problem in my eyes, but merely a symptom of the game being quite far from finished. When they propose questionable physics as the next 'improvement' (The concussion-effect from explosions) I shudder to think how they will sell this as a future MMORPG (unless they are hiding some things from the test, such as trade-systems, supply/demand controlled pricing and station-inventory/production.) If people were too busy working, there would be less pirates, and therefore fewer fighters in play (In Vendetta-terminology, less Grief.) Simply making slow ships more sturdy, or small-port missile-packs smaller is not the cure :)
@SirCamp:
I did add weapons to it, though not sunflares (c'mon everyone, lets NOT use sunflares?). I still died at the first sight of someone with a few times my own score, since I could not turn quickly enuff/predict his next move correctly (lack of experience playing Quake I guess ;)
/G
no 4 per tube is a bit little,
6 would be allright. Or make it hold 12 if you use 1 tube, if you use 2 tubes, still 12, but you can only fire 6 shots and if you have 3 tubes give it 4 shots? So the amount of sunflares is fixed.
You cant take down a prom in 4 shots. It is utterly impossible. At the same time it will encourage diversity, in stead of the tripple, dual and so on type of outfits.
It would make the hornet a better ship to :D
PS: if people think that 12 would be a little bit to little, then you could increase it to 18.
1 tube --> 18 shots
2 tubes --> 9 shots
3 tubes --> 6 shots
I dont know what would be best, but like eldrad stated, the best way is to make small changes and not to much at once.
6 would be allright. Or make it hold 12 if you use 1 tube, if you use 2 tubes, still 12, but you can only fire 6 shots and if you have 3 tubes give it 4 shots? So the amount of sunflares is fixed.
You cant take down a prom in 4 shots. It is utterly impossible. At the same time it will encourage diversity, in stead of the tripple, dual and so on type of outfits.
It would make the hornet a better ship to :D
PS: if people think that 12 would be a little bit to little, then you could increase it to 18.
1 tube --> 18 shots
2 tubes --> 9 shots
3 tubes --> 6 shots
I dont know what would be best, but like eldrad stated, the best way is to make small changes and not to much at once.
Actually, if you were limiting it by ship, I'd go for different limits per ship. Something like this for flares:
Centurion: 4
Warthog: 6
Vulture: 8
Valkyrie: 10
Hornet: 16
I'd prefer 4 per tube, though.
Centurion: 4
Warthog: 6
Vulture: 8
Valkyrie: 10
Hornet: 16
I'd prefer 4 per tube, though.
anything above 6 flares per tube IMNSHO is plain wrong.
Renegade:
Oddly enough, I don't think it was intended that you could take down the most heavily armored ship in the game using solely one tube of the cheapest rockets in the game. Then again, I might be wrong.
Oddly enough, I don't think it was intended that you could take down the most heavily armored ship in the game using solely one tube of the cheapest rockets in the game. Then again, I might be wrong.
"Oddly enough, I don't think it was intended that you could take down the most heavily armored ship in the game using solely one tube of the cheapest rockets in the game. Then again, I might be wrong."
-Surely you jest!
-Surely you jest!
Ctishman,
The disadvanrage in having 1 tube with 12 - 18 rockets is that you need to hit with them all, while if you use a double launcher, if you do hit youll score a higher punch. But you have less chances to actually hit the person.
Spamming multiple 1 rockets after each other is difficult, still possible, but most of us can avoid them a bit.
And yes, more then 6 flares per tube wouldnt be fair. It would increase the fixation towards flares again, in stead of getting again some diversity in the game.
But it was just a proposition.
cheers
PS: not to mention that you can now take down a heavy fighter easier since you have 16 shots with tripple flares.
The disadvanrage in having 1 tube with 12 - 18 rockets is that you need to hit with them all, while if you use a double launcher, if you do hit youll score a higher punch. But you have less chances to actually hit the person.
Spamming multiple 1 rockets after each other is difficult, still possible, but most of us can avoid them a bit.
And yes, more then 6 flares per tube wouldnt be fair. It would increase the fixation towards flares again, in stead of getting again some diversity in the game.
But it was just a proposition.
cheers
PS: not to mention that you can now take down a heavy fighter easier since you have 16 shots with tripple flares.
/me apologizes to GThang for continuing the subject on flares. This is a good discussion.
I like the idea of the weapon being merely the port on the ship, and the ship having a designated "ammo" area that feeds directly to the ports. Numbers may differ, but it makes sense that every ship should have a fixed amount, and the number of tubes determines how quickly you go through that ammo.
A twist would be to allow only a certain number of these tubes to connect to the ammo supply (making the others be primary weapons). For instance:
Centurion: 1
Vulture: 2
Hornet: 2
Valkyrie: 2
This would ensure that Valkyries and Hornets don't go flying around in a quad-flare/seeker set-up, and force some to drop the tri-flare set up. Many pilots already have (the most notable one being Phoenix, who uses a gauss cannon with deadly accuracy). Just my two ¢
I like the idea of the weapon being merely the port on the ship, and the ship having a designated "ammo" area that feeds directly to the ports. Numbers may differ, but it makes sense that every ship should have a fixed amount, and the number of tubes determines how quickly you go through that ammo.
A twist would be to allow only a certain number of these tubes to connect to the ammo supply (making the others be primary weapons). For instance:
Centurion: 1
Vulture: 2
Hornet: 2
Valkyrie: 2
This would ensure that Valkyries and Hornets don't go flying around in a quad-flare/seeker set-up, and force some to drop the tri-flare set up. Many pilots already have (the most notable one being Phoenix, who uses a gauss cannon with deadly accuracy). Just my two ¢
Most people can dodge flares. What they can't do it kill the flare user with energy weapons, because energy weapons are just as easy to dodge. Currently I'm a dual flare one tach/one gauss user, depending on the situation. The only setup that really gives me trouble is something with rails in it - can't get in range for the flares and my tach/gauss can't compete with the rail. If they have tachs in their setup, you can just dodge your way in then hit them with flares. Gauss is a bit more diffifult with the aimbot but basically the same idea. No one uses any other weapons so..
It would be interesting to have the ships be player built and sold. For instance, one would have to purchase the blueprints to the valkyrie and buy factory space on a station. Neither would be cheap. From there you would need a certain amount of different widgets to build it - some proprietary Itani software, some life support from sector 7, manufacturing goods from 9, metals from 14 etc. Making ships a limited player created commodity would drastically increase their value. It would also put a damper on players like Phoenix who can just buy 300 valks before their money runs out - all the money in the world won't help you if you can't find a seller or there aren't any Valks to buy. Heck, it would even make the economy truly player driven and dynamic instead of a loose supply-demand model.
You could apply all the above to weapons and ammo. You may even effectively eliminate the need for a karma system, as the producers of valks could be bribed or convinced to not sell them to certain players. The same for the producers of sunflares, or tachyon cannons. Trade would become more than randomly moving widgets to wherever the demand is arbitrarily highest - if there are three Valk factories there will be intense competetion for the needed widgets.
The more I ramble the more I like the idea... and then I remember that Vendetta may be on it's last legs. CURSE YOU IDIOTIC PUBLISHERS!
It would be interesting to have the ships be player built and sold. For instance, one would have to purchase the blueprints to the valkyrie and buy factory space on a station. Neither would be cheap. From there you would need a certain amount of different widgets to build it - some proprietary Itani software, some life support from sector 7, manufacturing goods from 9, metals from 14 etc. Making ships a limited player created commodity would drastically increase their value. It would also put a damper on players like Phoenix who can just buy 300 valks before their money runs out - all the money in the world won't help you if you can't find a seller or there aren't any Valks to buy. Heck, it would even make the economy truly player driven and dynamic instead of a loose supply-demand model.
You could apply all the above to weapons and ammo. You may even effectively eliminate the need for a karma system, as the producers of valks could be bribed or convinced to not sell them to certain players. The same for the producers of sunflares, or tachyon cannons. Trade would become more than randomly moving widgets to wherever the demand is arbitrarily highest - if there are three Valk factories there will be intense competetion for the needed widgets.
The more I ramble the more I like the idea... and then I remember that Vendetta may be on it's last legs. CURSE YOU IDIOTIC PUBLISHERS!
"The only setup that really gives me trouble is something with rails in it"
-Railgunners are actually quite impotent if you don't go on the offensive. As long as you move around they can't lay a finger on you. All you have to do wait them out.
-Railgunners are actually quite impotent if you don't go on the offensive. As long as you move around they can't lay a finger on you. All you have to do wait them out.
If only we could shoot flares when they're shot, that'll give flare whinners something to whine about(ADV. gats)
A flare is many times smaller than a vulture. If you problems hitting a vult with adv. gat. without targetting it, what makes you think you stand a ghost of a chance of hitting a flare?