Forums » Suggestions
For the vast majority of repairs, I don't think they should take any time, the reason being taking damage is exceedingly common in VO, and if repairing takes any amount of time, it is going to add up very quickly, and will end up being a large amount of what should be play time becoming twiddle-your-thumbs time.
However, recently I posted a suggestion ( http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10893 ) that a pilot's ship becomes personalized to the owner, and as the pilot continues to use the ship it gains attributes specific to the ship, like a reputation, and slightly better stats as the pilot tweaks the ship to fit him personally. Anyway, as part of that suggestion, in order to counter-balance to some degree the advantages of having a older ship, I suggested there be a slow "decay" of the ship's hull armor as it is damaged & repaired. So after a ship has been damaged, it will automatically & immediately repair most of the damage (like we do now), but the hull armor would be somewhat lower than previously. But as the hull armor becomes lower & lower as time goes on, the player will probably want to restore it to its original armor rating, and for those more extensive than normal repairs, I did suggest that they take some time, and be rather expensive credit-wise.
> It won't restrict you to sitting at a station and waiting there while you twiddle your
> thumbs either. You'll be able to switch ships while your other one gets repaired
If that's the case, then what would be the point of having the repairs take time at all? Because players would just switch ships, the repair time would essentially have very little effect on the game.
However, recently I posted a suggestion ( http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10893 ) that a pilot's ship becomes personalized to the owner, and as the pilot continues to use the ship it gains attributes specific to the ship, like a reputation, and slightly better stats as the pilot tweaks the ship to fit him personally. Anyway, as part of that suggestion, in order to counter-balance to some degree the advantages of having a older ship, I suggested there be a slow "decay" of the ship's hull armor as it is damaged & repaired. So after a ship has been damaged, it will automatically & immediately repair most of the damage (like we do now), but the hull armor would be somewhat lower than previously. But as the hull armor becomes lower & lower as time goes on, the player will probably want to restore it to its original armor rating, and for those more extensive than normal repairs, I did suggest that they take some time, and be rather expensive credit-wise.
> It won't restrict you to sitting at a station and waiting there while you twiddle your
> thumbs either. You'll be able to switch ships while your other one gets repaired
If that's the case, then what would be the point of having the repairs take time at all? Because players would just switch ships, the repair time would essentially have very little effect on the game.
I guess I should add a few more things. PvP combat right now is pretty random and meaningless. It's only a quick and cheap thrill for those who live off of combat. Role playing helps add some meaning and purpose to it. But I think ultimately having a more complex mission system will improve PvP combat immensely.
I think that's what the devs are working on implementing right now. It's also the reason why the devs haven't marketed the game publicly either. They KNOW it's not as fun as it should be in its current form.
I believe retreating does have a place in the game, and shouldn't be taken away or penalized. The thing is it already has its pros and cons. Take an escort mission for example.
Let's say you're escorting a convoy and 50% of the ships need to make it to some destination. A formation of enemy fighters show up and you get badly damaged in trying to defend the convoy. You either have the option of retreating and repairing, which would leave your convoy completely vulnerable and may result in the failure of your mission. Or you can fight to the end and have some chance of succeeding.
So you see there is a fair tradeoff in situations like that. Missions where you really need to stick around and work together will make those decisions more important. Giving players the option to choose from those actions help add to the dynamicism and "realism" of the gameplay. There is no need to artificially penalize players for retreating, as there will be major consequences either way.
If you need another example, just look back to when CTF existed in the test versions of Vendetta. Veterans will know exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately some of the newer players might not.
I think that's what the devs are working on implementing right now. It's also the reason why the devs haven't marketed the game publicly either. They KNOW it's not as fun as it should be in its current form.
I believe retreating does have a place in the game, and shouldn't be taken away or penalized. The thing is it already has its pros and cons. Take an escort mission for example.
Let's say you're escorting a convoy and 50% of the ships need to make it to some destination. A formation of enemy fighters show up and you get badly damaged in trying to defend the convoy. You either have the option of retreating and repairing, which would leave your convoy completely vulnerable and may result in the failure of your mission. Or you can fight to the end and have some chance of succeeding.
So you see there is a fair tradeoff in situations like that. Missions where you really need to stick around and work together will make those decisions more important. Giving players the option to choose from those actions help add to the dynamicism and "realism" of the gameplay. There is no need to artificially penalize players for retreating, as there will be major consequences either way.
If you need another example, just look back to when CTF existed in the test versions of Vendetta. Veterans will know exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately some of the newer players might not.
Beolach, because it adds to the "realism" of the game, of not having your ship be automajically repaired within less than a second. Also keep in mind that because people travel a lot, it would mean that you'd have to spend some time buying a new ship, equipping it (in a station which might not even have your favorite equipment), and finally getting back to battle. There's a tradeoff there. But the player won't be forced into waiting, because well... why would you stand there staring at a mechanic repair your ship when you can walk away and rent or buy yourself a new one to fight with?
Reality sucks. That's why I play computer games.
I totally agree with Arolte here, retreating should be a strategic choice in the game with regards to a predefined goal. offering missions to promote this would be yummy.
Reality sucks. That's why I play computer games.
We need shields! :) That, and maneuverable turbo. Combat is more exciting and fun when you can maneuver where you like to go. Sure, having precise phsyics is great and all, but fun > accuracy to real life.
We need shields! :) That, and maneuverable turbo. Combat is more exciting and fun when you can maneuver where you like to go. Sure, having precise phsyics is great and all, but fun > accuracy to real life.
@ Hoax: You owe me a coke. And a keyboard.
@ Beolach: Honestly wouldn't you just be happier playing Counter Strike, or Unreal, or Doom 3. Or heck if you are really set in flying spaceships into combat get an old copy of Decent or Decent 2 its still really fun even for an older game. An MMO needs to please a target audiance. Classicly the FPS crowd has not made a good MMO audiance. And the space sim audiance is very steeped in the RPG arenia. Many people here most likely come from games like Freelancer, X-Wing series, Freespace, or Privateer. The intire point of playing in a persistant world is feeling like part of that world. It's not a true RPG but its sill much closer in concept than the FPS. Its an escapeist fantasy. And while the FPS croud may find much to thier liking any comunity will come primarily from the escapeist RPG side. Without traders, miners, crafters, builders, ect... you have no economy. Not everyone can be a pirate. And the more "reality" the game has the more interested people will be in playing a trader, miner, crafter, builder. The more of these people there are the more pirates the economy can tolerate.
@ Beolach: Honestly wouldn't you just be happier playing Counter Strike, or Unreal, or Doom 3. Or heck if you are really set in flying spaceships into combat get an old copy of Decent or Decent 2 its still really fun even for an older game. An MMO needs to please a target audiance. Classicly the FPS crowd has not made a good MMO audiance. And the space sim audiance is very steeped in the RPG arenia. Many people here most likely come from games like Freelancer, X-Wing series, Freespace, or Privateer. The intire point of playing in a persistant world is feeling like part of that world. It's not a true RPG but its sill much closer in concept than the FPS. Its an escapeist fantasy. And while the FPS croud may find much to thier liking any comunity will come primarily from the escapeist RPG side. Without traders, miners, crafters, builders, ect... you have no economy. Not everyone can be a pirate. And the more "reality" the game has the more interested people will be in playing a trader, miner, crafter, builder. The more of these people there are the more pirates the economy can tolerate.
ahem in wow there are no pirates but fighters. In any spacesim you have military personnel. Pirates are not the only fighters... they are the fighters of the despicable outlaws (no offence ;)).
Not to mention that this is just as much an rpg as an fps since it is after all a hybrid. Meaning they will need to please both sides of the coin.
Sure make running acceptable for objective oriented missions and traders. But keep it away from the general gameplay. How would you consider this as a compromise?
Not to mention that this is just as much an rpg as an fps since it is after all a hybrid. Meaning they will need to please both sides of the coin.
Sure make running acceptable for objective oriented missions and traders. But keep it away from the general gameplay. How would you consider this as a compromise?
Personally I cant imagine why running is even a problem to worry about. Honestly its a tatic. Just like any other tatic. If your goal can be better aided by running then thats what you do. Punishing running any more than the obvios drawbacks from the action itslef is just silly.
> @ Beolach: Honestly wouldn't you just be happier playing Counter Strike, or Unreal, or Doom 3.
Heh, if you've got me tagged as a FPS gamer, you are so off. I'm here for the role-playing, thank you very much. And I don't know why you would think that I prefer FPS over RPG after I say I play games because reality sucks. If anything, FPS games have more elements of reality than RPGs. I have played through both Decents, and several other space-combat games, and I did enjoy them, but I would have to say I most enjoyed the ones with the most role-playing elements.
I completely agree with your last post though, Forlarren. If a player decides running is what they are going to do in a situation, there's nothing wrong with that.
Heh, if you've got me tagged as a FPS gamer, you are so off. I'm here for the role-playing, thank you very much. And I don't know why you would think that I prefer FPS over RPG after I say I play games because reality sucks. If anything, FPS games have more elements of reality than RPGs. I have played through both Decents, and several other space-combat games, and I did enjoy them, but I would have to say I most enjoyed the ones with the most role-playing elements.
I completely agree with your last post though, Forlarren. If a player decides running is what they are going to do in a situation, there's nothing wrong with that.
Lets see what happens if I switch to a missilespamming valk. Jump in shoot all my missiles and jump back out. Repeat ad nauseum. Where is the point about skill or having twitchbased combat?
Let us just switch to a dicebased hit and be done with it then.
Let us just switch to a dicebased hit and be done with it then.
If you want to do that Rene, go ahead. You're never going to kill me with that tactic, because it's a skill based game, and call me arrogant, but I have "m4d 1337 skillz" for dodging missiles.
For capital ships, levithans, stations, etc., I see missilespamming bombing runs as completely legitimate tactics.
For capital ships, levithans, stations, etc., I see missilespamming bombing runs as completely legitimate tactics.
I think a big issue with running is that our Turbo speeds are sooo high. I mean, ships can fly between 3 to 4 times as fast under turbo than they do normally.
I'll post something about that in a separate topic later...
I'll post something about that in a separate topic later...
the point if those tactics is not to kill but to annoy...
And the chance of taking someone out that uses it is pretty small as well.
My point being, how can you determine skill then. And why then ever bother about skill and calling it a skill game.
PS: pretty much all missiles are a piec eof cake to dodge. The only ones that might prove a problem are the swarms. But that is it.
And the chance of taking someone out that uses it is pretty small as well.
My point being, how can you determine skill then. And why then ever bother about skill and calling it a skill game.
PS: pretty much all missiles are a piec eof cake to dodge. The only ones that might prove a problem are the swarms. But that is it.
Tatics is a type of skill.
Forlarren:
Its not so much that we ask for changes (read "nerfs") to ships because we get frustrated upon not winning (though I must admit, that does occasionally happen)
We talk about ship changes so much because we fight MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE. That doesn't necessarily mean we're better, but we try out everything we can think of. We're never satisfied upon not being able to accomplish something.
And so after trying (and trying), when we still fail more than 80% of the time, we figure, ok this may be unbalanced.
Its not so much that we ask for changes (read "nerfs") to ships because we get frustrated upon not winning (though I must admit, that does occasionally happen)
We talk about ship changes so much because we fight MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE. That doesn't necessarily mean we're better, but we try out everything we can think of. We're never satisfied upon not being able to accomplish something.
And so after trying (and trying), when we still fail more than 80% of the time, we figure, ok this may be unbalanced.
20% sucess. Hmm dosn't seem that bad. See if you loose you out some ammo and your time (time that you dediced of your own volition to spend pirateing) at the worst. If a transport looses, he looses; cargo thats expensive paid for with his own money, his ship, and his time. Considering that the transports have many times more to loose it should only make since that they should not face falure at a 50/50 rate.
You know what? Your pirates, maybe you can convince yourselves that your part of some honorable guild, maybe even go so far at to sugest that you serve some economic function. Well you are not honorable, and pirates are nothing but a drain on the economy. At the very best you are murdering thives. To sugest that you diserve anything like a fair shot at winning a 1 on 1 with a fleeing trader with much more to loose than you is just arrogent. The only benifit pirates bring to Vendetta is an antagonist to hate, and an increased level of risk to grey sectors to justify higher profit missions.
Missions were sugested by Arolte as a way to make not running important. It fixed every possable problem other than the shortsited desire to make others lives miserable, by making trade through grey space impossable (without escort, and frankly this game dose not have nearly the population for that kind of infrastructure yet). Yeah it should be risky, I think 10 to 20% falure sounds just about right.
You know what? Your pirates, maybe you can convince yourselves that your part of some honorable guild, maybe even go so far at to sugest that you serve some economic function. Well you are not honorable, and pirates are nothing but a drain on the economy. At the very best you are murdering thives. To sugest that you diserve anything like a fair shot at winning a 1 on 1 with a fleeing trader with much more to loose than you is just arrogent. The only benifit pirates bring to Vendetta is an antagonist to hate, and an increased level of risk to grey sectors to justify higher profit missions.
Missions were sugested by Arolte as a way to make not running important. It fixed every possable problem other than the shortsited desire to make others lives miserable, by making trade through grey space impossable (without escort, and frankly this game dose not have nearly the population for that kind of infrastructure yet). Yeah it should be risky, I think 10 to 20% falure sounds just about right.
Forlarren, we do not have a 10-20% chance of catching a moth. Shapes 80% was an example of how we test things and see how they're actually balanced. we run a lot of tests of ships and equipment, like with the uber Centaurs, and see what it actually takes to down them.
you might not call us honorable, that's your choice. that's also your loss. I've probably helped more players in this game than most other players have, and I've taught people how to run from me, how to trade well, and lots of other stuff. if you are holding a pure RP stance on your view of pirates, do so in the RP forum. if you're looking to make suggestions to balance a game, try to see what the objective of the balance is, and ignore what your personal preference is. there are enough things I would dream to be better, but know objectivly can't be made better since they'd be too good.
for reference on losses, during a week where I tried to live of pirating alone, I *LOST* around 20K. this is due to the fact that a pirate looses ships too, *and* that a moth is so hard to catch that its values hardly make up for the cost of that one success. during that week I caught 0 moths on my own, and caught 2 in groups were we where 3 attackers. both of those were only caught due to the trader making very simple mistakes. the total yeild to me from these two catches was a whopping total of 55K. during the week I lost four ships.
earlier this week however I made around 1.5M in under two hours of trading. as such I fail to see how you can claim we are a drain on the economy.
I've been hunted by pirates (both in my guild and from other guilds) regularly while trading, I've never lost a single moth to them. I was hunted by five people across grey a few days ago, I took damage in two sectors, the first one (30% as they all charged me) and in the second to last sector to home, as I turned and attacked the pirate with my moth, since I wanted the kill. if it hadn't been for him being awake and *running* to get away from me, I would have gotten it too. I docked with 51% health after annoucing my run from Latos to Jallik and having 5 people on standby to hunt me at all costs. this was *FIVE* people hunting me!
one on one it's pretty clear that this is not a 10%-20% chance, a moth flown with _any_ skill today is safe. a moth flown with no skill at all, ie just turbolock, is probably closer to 5% or so. there is practically no risk in trading through grey. ask Scorpius if you want to hear from a trader, he does his run which we know well. yet he has more PKs from killing pirates than he's had even remotly successful attempts at pirating him. ask TGFT how often their moths are pirated.
moths fear nothing today. storms are a laugh, pirates are a laugh, large proc missions are a laugh. it has lead to a situation where trade is completly dull, you're pretty much perfectly safe as you hop around and make money. if that's what we want for VO, can't we just give everyone 100M credits so we don't have to just hit enter so often?
you might not call us honorable, that's your choice. that's also your loss. I've probably helped more players in this game than most other players have, and I've taught people how to run from me, how to trade well, and lots of other stuff. if you are holding a pure RP stance on your view of pirates, do so in the RP forum. if you're looking to make suggestions to balance a game, try to see what the objective of the balance is, and ignore what your personal preference is. there are enough things I would dream to be better, but know objectivly can't be made better since they'd be too good.
for reference on losses, during a week where I tried to live of pirating alone, I *LOST* around 20K. this is due to the fact that a pirate looses ships too, *and* that a moth is so hard to catch that its values hardly make up for the cost of that one success. during that week I caught 0 moths on my own, and caught 2 in groups were we where 3 attackers. both of those were only caught due to the trader making very simple mistakes. the total yeild to me from these two catches was a whopping total of 55K. during the week I lost four ships.
earlier this week however I made around 1.5M in under two hours of trading. as such I fail to see how you can claim we are a drain on the economy.
I've been hunted by pirates (both in my guild and from other guilds) regularly while trading, I've never lost a single moth to them. I was hunted by five people across grey a few days ago, I took damage in two sectors, the first one (30% as they all charged me) and in the second to last sector to home, as I turned and attacked the pirate with my moth, since I wanted the kill. if it hadn't been for him being awake and *running* to get away from me, I would have gotten it too. I docked with 51% health after annoucing my run from Latos to Jallik and having 5 people on standby to hunt me at all costs. this was *FIVE* people hunting me!
one on one it's pretty clear that this is not a 10%-20% chance, a moth flown with _any_ skill today is safe. a moth flown with no skill at all, ie just turbolock, is probably closer to 5% or so. there is practically no risk in trading through grey. ask Scorpius if you want to hear from a trader, he does his run which we know well. yet he has more PKs from killing pirates than he's had even remotly successful attempts at pirating him. ask TGFT how often their moths are pirated.
moths fear nothing today. storms are a laugh, pirates are a laugh, large proc missions are a laugh. it has lead to a situation where trade is completly dull, you're pretty much perfectly safe as you hop around and make money. if that's what we want for VO, can't we just give everyone 100M credits so we don't have to just hit enter so often?
Thnak you terjekv for the well argued post. I have not had much time to play this game between work, personal life, good weather and my motorcycle :P but I have been trying to keep up with the forums at least due to my desire to see Vendetta suceede. If the moth is as good as you say it is. I can conseede that it needs balance ajustment. On the running thread though it was postulated that reducing armor would be a better solution.
And my stance on pirates is not about RP, its a game design view. No I am not aginst pirates, I like to hate them. Much like a movie goer likes to hate the bad guy. But just because I may think that Dr. Hanibal Lecter is really cool, dosn't mean I dont think he is evil. Criminal actions are drains on the economy. From a game design view if your economy needs a drain it can be a good thing. But that dosn't mean anyone is going to like it (just like we dont like Hanibal).
And terjekv you may be honorable in most of your dealings but the act of piracy, theft and murder, is not.
And my stance on pirates is not about RP, its a game design view. No I am not aginst pirates, I like to hate them. Much like a movie goer likes to hate the bad guy. But just because I may think that Dr. Hanibal Lecter is really cool, dosn't mean I dont think he is evil. Criminal actions are drains on the economy. From a game design view if your economy needs a drain it can be a good thing. But that dosn't mean anyone is going to like it (just like we dont like Hanibal).
And terjekv you may be honorable in most of your dealings but the act of piracy, theft and murder, is not.
Ah, and trading weapons/weapon parts is a noble line of business.... HA!