Forums » Suggestions
I'd agree to that comprimise. Take the damage down to 8999 (now a gold special could survive dual-avalons) and reduce storage to 2 per launcher... But please don't nerf them like you did to the rail gun devs...
I have long said that suicide tactics would be fun. But the problem here seems to be that the "suicide" has been taken out of the tactic. There are many ways to fix this, though. I'm not the most creative person in the world, but here are a few ideas:
1) remove nukes (bad idea)
2) make the contact damage area high enough so that the kamakazi pilot can't possibily survive, but have it drop off quickly just 10m out or so. This could be bad too - for capital ships especially.
3) introduce different "types" of defenses (armor, shields, etc.) so that any smaller fighter would be vaporized but larger capital ships (who would *never* be able to dodge the attack) would have some sort of defense against it. maybe tons of mounted ant-impact turrets, shields, or even "spikes" (sounds silly, but it would detonate torps before reaching the actual hull)
...from what I've seen from the devs so far, I'm confident they'll think of something :-)
1) remove nukes (bad idea)
2) make the contact damage area high enough so that the kamakazi pilot can't possibily survive, but have it drop off quickly just 10m out or so. This could be bad too - for capital ships especially.
3) introduce different "types" of defenses (armor, shields, etc.) so that any smaller fighter would be vaporized but larger capital ships (who would *never* be able to dodge the attack) would have some sort of defense against it. maybe tons of mounted ant-impact turrets, shields, or even "spikes" (sounds silly, but it would detonate torps before reaching the actual hull)
...from what I've seen from the devs so far, I'm confident they'll think of something :-)
"A large enemy ship comes boosting straight at you. It closes to 70m and fires a torpedo. You don't notice ANYTHING until the torpedo hits you some two seconds later. You are destroyed."
That is not the tactic I'm complaining about.
The tactic I'm complaining about is that the torpedo doesn't need to hit me two seconds latter. Once the enemy has closed to within 70m, the game is up. I'm now in the Proximity radius of the Torp. As soon as he fires, it will blow up on me no matter what I do. If the Avalon slinger is actually trying to hit me with the Torp he's an idiot. It's hard enough to hit me with a rocket.
Icarus: The only player using this tactic against me was using a Warthog. I'm pretty observant of the surroundings to. As anyone can testify, I'm able to get out of ambushes at least half the time and the only time I've been successfully ambushed since 3.2 came out is when I was chatting with the player that ambushed me (Arolte twice I think) or fighting another player (Blaster got me with quad rails once while I was fighting someone else).
Going down to two Avalons is closer to what I originally envisioned for the Torp (not that that makes any difference), but still doesn't solve the fact that the kamikazi only needs 1.
And understand, as blue I have access to the Valk which survives this tactic (albiet with 1%) about 50% of the time by dodging just out of the 70m radius as the thing goes off.
All I'm asking for are two realistic modifications that real world Torps generally already have - minimum arming distance (which would kill the uber-mine exploit as well, though the weapon would need a time out for garbage collection), and _if it proves necessary_ lower proximity radius or none at all.
That is not the tactic I'm complaining about.
The tactic I'm complaining about is that the torpedo doesn't need to hit me two seconds latter. Once the enemy has closed to within 70m, the game is up. I'm now in the Proximity radius of the Torp. As soon as he fires, it will blow up on me no matter what I do. If the Avalon slinger is actually trying to hit me with the Torp he's an idiot. It's hard enough to hit me with a rocket.
Icarus: The only player using this tactic against me was using a Warthog. I'm pretty observant of the surroundings to. As anyone can testify, I'm able to get out of ambushes at least half the time and the only time I've been successfully ambushed since 3.2 came out is when I was chatting with the player that ambushed me (Arolte twice I think) or fighting another player (Blaster got me with quad rails once while I was fighting someone else).
Going down to two Avalons is closer to what I originally envisioned for the Torp (not that that makes any difference), but still doesn't solve the fact that the kamikazi only needs 1.
And understand, as blue I have access to the Valk which survives this tactic (albiet with 1%) about 50% of the time by dodging just out of the 70m radius as the thing goes off.
All I'm asking for are two realistic modifications that real world Torps generally already have - minimum arming distance (which would kill the uber-mine exploit as well, though the weapon would need a time out for garbage collection), and _if it proves necessary_ lower proximity radius or none at all.
Roguelazer, you STILL don't understand the problem. Any skilled player in a heavy can get within 70m of you and fire the torpedo. It's not hard to catch up to your enemy like that. When there are bots and other players around you that your targeting mechanism keeps picking up, it makes the situation even harder. How do you single out who the nuke carrier is when you have enemy figters and bots all around you? It's silly of you to say that players should be aware of their surroundings when Vendetta will eventually involve entire fleets of battles.
For the 762 trillionth time, there is no way to avoid a torpedo that is fired within detonation proximity at the time of launch. You aren't given ten, five, or even two seconds to avoid it. It's just BOOM and you're dead. Earlier the devs tried to avoid insta-kill weapons by "fixing" the damage on the rockets. They WANT players to be able to get away even after being ambushed (but just barely). That's why rocket damage went from two to four hits per kill. The avalons go completely against this belief.
And as I said before, I think the best way to tweak them in the game is to require DIRECT hits with them. At least then you will give the player a chance to dodge the torpedoes at close ranges without worrying about the unavoidable proximity detonator. You guys need to realize that it's called "torpedo" for a reason. Torpedoes are meant to be used against large carriers and frigates, not fighters. Right now you may argue against taking away the proximity detonator, but when you see how sluggish these biggers ships will be, you'll realize that torpedoes will in fact have their place in the game. Basically, the avalons are a specialized weapon class that are being used incorrectly in the game. They don't have a place in it right now. They will eventually.
PS: Adding shields or weakening weapons is not the answer. In order to defend a frigate or carrier, players will need to travel in fleets. A frigate shouldn't be out there alone with avalon carrying bombers. Teamwork is key.
For the 762 trillionth time, there is no way to avoid a torpedo that is fired within detonation proximity at the time of launch. You aren't given ten, five, or even two seconds to avoid it. It's just BOOM and you're dead. Earlier the devs tried to avoid insta-kill weapons by "fixing" the damage on the rockets. They WANT players to be able to get away even after being ambushed (but just barely). That's why rocket damage went from two to four hits per kill. The avalons go completely against this belief.
And as I said before, I think the best way to tweak them in the game is to require DIRECT hits with them. At least then you will give the player a chance to dodge the torpedoes at close ranges without worrying about the unavoidable proximity detonator. You guys need to realize that it's called "torpedo" for a reason. Torpedoes are meant to be used against large carriers and frigates, not fighters. Right now you may argue against taking away the proximity detonator, but when you see how sluggish these biggers ships will be, you'll realize that torpedoes will in fact have their place in the game. Basically, the avalons are a specialized weapon class that are being used incorrectly in the game. They don't have a place in it right now. They will eventually.
PS: Adding shields or weakening weapons is not the answer. In order to defend a frigate or carrier, players will need to travel in fleets. A frigate shouldn't be out there alone with avalon carrying bombers. Teamwork is key.
Food for Thought:
At best a Serco pilot is going to close 2500 meters in about 13 seconds. 13 seconds is enough time for a single defender... hell lets make it 10 seconds... 10 seconds is enough time to fire 20 sunflare rockets from a single defender. I came on last night at the tail end of that Gold Assault. There must of been 6 guys protecting the flag carrier. If only 3 of them had gotten on the red that entered the sector that's 60 sunflare rockets and 81,000 points of damage even with 25% inaccuracy accounted for.
Arolte with all due respect to you doing the right thing and looking out for the game, lets base all of our "the sky is falling... the sky is falling" shout-outs to a problem that has proved itself as a problem with experience... not one failed flag cap (which is not the intended purpose of the game anyway).
And also, all of yours and Celebrim's (the only person who thinks railguns were balanced as they were, now thinks nukes are OUT of balance) comments seem to imply that the Serco will take nominal damage if any at all and could easily pull this tactic off again and again with a 100% hull all night. To be fair this is not true.
Im just saying that on this I am thinking maybe some more experience is called for before passing a nerf judgement on these things. I don't even use them anymore becuase I can't afford to replace a 70K ship cost... so I won't be exploiting them anyway.
By the way... station camping and firing nukes at station is ridiculous and we should have a way to combat ALL station campers IMHO with either AI police or automated station defenses for loiterers or something. And station invuln. exploiting is for idiots and hopeless morons who should have their accounts banned from the game as well.
At best a Serco pilot is going to close 2500 meters in about 13 seconds. 13 seconds is enough time for a single defender... hell lets make it 10 seconds... 10 seconds is enough time to fire 20 sunflare rockets from a single defender. I came on last night at the tail end of that Gold Assault. There must of been 6 guys protecting the flag carrier. If only 3 of them had gotten on the red that entered the sector that's 60 sunflare rockets and 81,000 points of damage even with 25% inaccuracy accounted for.
Arolte with all due respect to you doing the right thing and looking out for the game, lets base all of our "the sky is falling... the sky is falling" shout-outs to a problem that has proved itself as a problem with experience... not one failed flag cap (which is not the intended purpose of the game anyway).
And also, all of yours and Celebrim's (the only person who thinks railguns were balanced as they were, now thinks nukes are OUT of balance) comments seem to imply that the Serco will take nominal damage if any at all and could easily pull this tactic off again and again with a 100% hull all night. To be fair this is not true.
Im just saying that on this I am thinking maybe some more experience is called for before passing a nerf judgement on these things. I don't even use them anymore becuase I can't afford to replace a 70K ship cost... so I won't be exploiting them anyway.
By the way... station camping and firing nukes at station is ridiculous and we should have a way to combat ALL station campers IMHO with either AI police or automated station defenses for loiterers or something. And station invuln. exploiting is for idiots and hopeless morons who should have their accounts banned from the game as well.
Also, Celebrim... can you give another example where a game has been out of balance because of a Kamikaaze problem? I think that this kamikaazes overtaking Vendetta-idea is utterly half-baked. What experienced player with lots of cash is going to constantly fling themselves into people just to kill them? Leathal maybe... They would be losing at minimum 50K a ship. They do that 10x they have lost 500,000 credits. And how often are there groups of people just hanging out together all innocent-like within the blast radius of an Avalon? meh.. I really don't know but I felt the need to speak up about the lack of logic in this discussion.
"the only person who thinks railguns were balanced as they were, now thinks nukes are OUT of balance"
That is an egregiously untrue statement.
I said alot of complex things about the railgun which you apparantly didn't understand, but I never said that they shouldn't be changed. I did argue vehemently against them being nerfed by taking them to 200, true, but that isn't the same thing.
What I said was that the rail gun was not in and of itself unbalanced. It was unbalanced because it could be used in combination well. I therefore made the following suggestions - reduce the number of ships which can mount dual or quad rails by separating small ports into small gun and small missile ports. Then raise the energy required on the rail to 20. Or, if you will not do that because you want to keep perfect flexibility, raise the energy required on the rail to 45 and reduce the damage from the rail to 1900 to limit its first strike effect (because so many ships have multiples of 2000 hull points). You follow that? I'm not for 'nerfing' anything. I want all the weapons to be 'good', and that means most of them need to be better than they are now.
"[your] comments seem to imply that the Serco will take nominal damage if any at all and could easily pull this tactic off again and again with a 100% hull all night."
And no they don't. I don't care if there is no ship in the game that can survive a single kamikazi attack. The point is that it is a unfun tactic which sooner or latter most everyone is going to tire of but which will never go away unless you fix it.
What example can I give a of a game overrun by the Kamikazi problem? Well, I can't, because most game designers do there best to make sure you can't do anything like this. I know this to be true because I was on a beta test where the designer openly said that changes had been made to limit kamikazi tactics. But, I can refer you to a game with a Kamikazi exploit that was at times a serious problem - X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter. In XvT there was a weapon called an 'Advanced Photon Torpedo' (sound familiar?). It was intended to be solely a anti-capital ship weapon, and in general usage that was the only thing it was good for. However, it didn't take people long to realize that if you loaded your fighter with APT's in a dogfight, all you had to do was get close to the opponent and fire straight at them. Normally, the APT was so unmanueverable that if the fighter moved at all it would get out of its way. But at point black range the ATP would simply knife straight out and hit anything in its way. The result was the 'ATP ram' which was a problem whenever dogfights featured more than two players (it much harder to avoid being overrun by two people than one). The 'ATP ram' was in many ways even worse than what we have now, because it was very survivable for the kamikazi attacker, and always utterly lethal for the defender.
And I'll even tell you the types of players that will do nothing but Avalon rams in the middle of fights too. They are the kind of players that are very competitive, tend to be younger, and are tired of getting 'schooled' by more experienced players. After your 50k ship gets blown up a few times in succession you hit upon the idea of the kamikazi attack. Sometimes you blow up. Sometimes you blow up yourself and an enemy. Sometimes (by flying something like the Serco) you win. Sometimes you take even more than one opponent down. To you, this is great. You are taking down even the best players in the game. You think you are showing off your skills. Your kill ratio might even go up. Why should you stop? Who cares that you were losing 50k ships now. You were losing them before hand too. Now you are killing FiReMaGe. You are killing Icarus. You are killing Pheonix. You are killing Arolte. This is great. You are more than willing to trade for 30 minutes to get a chance at blowing up the great <insert your name here>.
The other group that will do it is the guy taking one for his team.
Look, we can let this go on for a few weeks until the novelty wears off and you get bored with the tactic and most people are complaining except for those few that think this is a great way to show thier skills, or we can start working on a solution as soon as possible.
And for the last time, money is not a particularly good way to achieve balance. Money is a means of limiting access and giving players a since of accomplishment ('I finally am able to afford to buy a X.'). But this isn't a game of Starcraft. Money is not a particularly finite resource here and I for one am not sure it should be (see Ultima Online).
That is an egregiously untrue statement.
I said alot of complex things about the railgun which you apparantly didn't understand, but I never said that they shouldn't be changed. I did argue vehemently against them being nerfed by taking them to 200, true, but that isn't the same thing.
What I said was that the rail gun was not in and of itself unbalanced. It was unbalanced because it could be used in combination well. I therefore made the following suggestions - reduce the number of ships which can mount dual or quad rails by separating small ports into small gun and small missile ports. Then raise the energy required on the rail to 20. Or, if you will not do that because you want to keep perfect flexibility, raise the energy required on the rail to 45 and reduce the damage from the rail to 1900 to limit its first strike effect (because so many ships have multiples of 2000 hull points). You follow that? I'm not for 'nerfing' anything. I want all the weapons to be 'good', and that means most of them need to be better than they are now.
"[your] comments seem to imply that the Serco will take nominal damage if any at all and could easily pull this tactic off again and again with a 100% hull all night."
And no they don't. I don't care if there is no ship in the game that can survive a single kamikazi attack. The point is that it is a unfun tactic which sooner or latter most everyone is going to tire of but which will never go away unless you fix it.
What example can I give a of a game overrun by the Kamikazi problem? Well, I can't, because most game designers do there best to make sure you can't do anything like this. I know this to be true because I was on a beta test where the designer openly said that changes had been made to limit kamikazi tactics. But, I can refer you to a game with a Kamikazi exploit that was at times a serious problem - X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter. In XvT there was a weapon called an 'Advanced Photon Torpedo' (sound familiar?). It was intended to be solely a anti-capital ship weapon, and in general usage that was the only thing it was good for. However, it didn't take people long to realize that if you loaded your fighter with APT's in a dogfight, all you had to do was get close to the opponent and fire straight at them. Normally, the APT was so unmanueverable that if the fighter moved at all it would get out of its way. But at point black range the ATP would simply knife straight out and hit anything in its way. The result was the 'ATP ram' which was a problem whenever dogfights featured more than two players (it much harder to avoid being overrun by two people than one). The 'ATP ram' was in many ways even worse than what we have now, because it was very survivable for the kamikazi attacker, and always utterly lethal for the defender.
And I'll even tell you the types of players that will do nothing but Avalon rams in the middle of fights too. They are the kind of players that are very competitive, tend to be younger, and are tired of getting 'schooled' by more experienced players. After your 50k ship gets blown up a few times in succession you hit upon the idea of the kamikazi attack. Sometimes you blow up. Sometimes you blow up yourself and an enemy. Sometimes (by flying something like the Serco) you win. Sometimes you take even more than one opponent down. To you, this is great. You are taking down even the best players in the game. You think you are showing off your skills. Your kill ratio might even go up. Why should you stop? Who cares that you were losing 50k ships now. You were losing them before hand too. Now you are killing FiReMaGe. You are killing Icarus. You are killing Pheonix. You are killing Arolte. This is great. You are more than willing to trade for 30 minutes to get a chance at blowing up the great <insert your name here>.
The other group that will do it is the guy taking one for his team.
Look, we can let this go on for a few weeks until the novelty wears off and you get bored with the tactic and most people are complaining except for those few that think this is a great way to show thier skills, or we can start working on a solution as soon as possible.
And for the last time, money is not a particularly good way to achieve balance. Money is a means of limiting access and giving players a since of accomplishment ('I finally am able to afford to buy a X.'). But this isn't a game of Starcraft. Money is not a particularly finite resource here and I for one am not sure it should be (see Ultima Online).
Well, let me use some more examples to try and show you what I'm saying...
I've only been killed by somone else's torp once, and that was just because I thought the person in question wouldn't shoot... Now, why is that? Maybe it's because when I cap I DON"T LET THE PERSON GET WITHIN 1000M OF ME! Maybe the fact that I've never been successfully torped while capping may prove my methods. I don't know... What else? Well, capping seems to be the only time when you MIGHT be vulnerable, since you can boost away faster than a Prometheus in ANY ship except a bus, and if you're so bad that you're a target of torps in a bus... well, that was a waste of 2k. So the only vulnerable times are while capping.
Now, let me respond to your most recent post. You think the only torp-users are childish n00bs who are tired of getting blown up? Wrong. As a matter of fact, the only ones I've seen use them are myself, Icarus, FiReMaGe, Phoenix and a coupla other vets. n00bs? bah.
As for your thought that it's a serco only tactic, well, that's complete you-know-what. I use it in my Warthog with great success, although I obviously don't kamikazie. I simply use AIM to shoot from a distance, as Arolte might or might not agree to.
The Avalons are not out of balance, no matter what you think. They are some of the only in balance weapons in the game. You and the other whiners just have to alter your tactics. Maybe you shouldn't wait to engage enemies at 100m. Maybe you shouldn't cluster around a flag carrier like flies on a horse. Maybe you should experiment with long distance weapons, with rockets (which I've also had some good experience with), and perhaps you should try an early detonation method. I don't know... But I think it's worth a shot to adapt yourself instead of instantly assuming a powerful weapon is unbalanced and deserving of nerfhood.
Edit: w00t! The mad moderator locks another thread... Yet I can still edit posts. Wow! I just love THIS thread locking feature...
I've only been killed by somone else's torp once, and that was just because I thought the person in question wouldn't shoot... Now, why is that? Maybe it's because when I cap I DON"T LET THE PERSON GET WITHIN 1000M OF ME! Maybe the fact that I've never been successfully torped while capping may prove my methods. I don't know... What else? Well, capping seems to be the only time when you MIGHT be vulnerable, since you can boost away faster than a Prometheus in ANY ship except a bus, and if you're so bad that you're a target of torps in a bus... well, that was a waste of 2k. So the only vulnerable times are while capping.
Now, let me respond to your most recent post. You think the only torp-users are childish n00bs who are tired of getting blown up? Wrong. As a matter of fact, the only ones I've seen use them are myself, Icarus, FiReMaGe, Phoenix and a coupla other vets. n00bs? bah.
As for your thought that it's a serco only tactic, well, that's complete you-know-what. I use it in my Warthog with great success, although I obviously don't kamikazie. I simply use AIM to shoot from a distance, as Arolte might or might not agree to.
The Avalons are not out of balance, no matter what you think. They are some of the only in balance weapons in the game. You and the other whiners just have to alter your tactics. Maybe you shouldn't wait to engage enemies at 100m. Maybe you shouldn't cluster around a flag carrier like flies on a horse. Maybe you should experiment with long distance weapons, with rockets (which I've also had some good experience with), and perhaps you should try an early detonation method. I don't know... But I think it's worth a shot to adapt yourself instead of instantly assuming a powerful weapon is unbalanced and deserving of nerfhood.
Edit: w00t! The mad moderator locks another thread... Yet I can still edit posts. Wow! I just love THIS thread locking feature...
Celebraim, some questions:
What is:
egregiously
vehemently
PS: the ideas you present for the rail are in my opinion nice, I haven't played so I can't say of they are unbalanced , but I like the 45energy and lowering the damage a tad in your explication.
About the kamikazaa "or god knows if it is kamikaze" technique, I don't like it but it could be used for the occasional time. Like I once stated if they wanted a kamikaze ship then they will put it in like the devestator "you know the big tanks in command and conquer that you can let explode if they suffered to much damage and therefore taking other things with you". I don't like the technique neither, but if the devs are willing to put them in , then they will do that by being able to mount explosives on your ships, and not by putting in a torpedo that you are able to shoot point blank.
Besides, it's exactly the same as in the 3.1, there were rockets to and if you shot them from to close, nobody liked it, it was even called a lemming "so an exploit". And everybody knows that that is hated a lot. Look for instance to leathal who used that a lot, and then bragged that he killed you.
Ooh well enough of my incoherent toughts and ...
cheers
PS: I'm sure the devs are playing the game themselves and put them to the test,if they find it great to be blown up by this technique, then it will stay, if they don't then the technique will wither away and be banned :D "fixed", as I hope they will :D
PPS: no offense intended devs, it is still a very nice piece of work what you have done here ;), just a way of proving a point :D
What is:
egregiously
vehemently
PS: the ideas you present for the rail are in my opinion nice, I haven't played so I can't say of they are unbalanced , but I like the 45energy and lowering the damage a tad in your explication.
About the kamikazaa "or god knows if it is kamikaze" technique, I don't like it but it could be used for the occasional time. Like I once stated if they wanted a kamikaze ship then they will put it in like the devestator "you know the big tanks in command and conquer that you can let explode if they suffered to much damage and therefore taking other things with you". I don't like the technique neither, but if the devs are willing to put them in , then they will do that by being able to mount explosives on your ships, and not by putting in a torpedo that you are able to shoot point blank.
Besides, it's exactly the same as in the 3.1, there were rockets to and if you shot them from to close, nobody liked it, it was even called a lemming "so an exploit". And everybody knows that that is hated a lot. Look for instance to leathal who used that a lot, and then bragged that he killed you.
Ooh well enough of my incoherent toughts and ...
cheers
PS: I'm sure the devs are playing the game themselves and put them to the test,if they find it great to be blown up by this technique, then it will stay, if they don't then the technique will wither away and be banned :D "fixed", as I hope they will :D
PPS: no offense intended devs, it is still a very nice piece of work what you have done here ;), just a way of proving a point :D
roguelazer: Now you are not even reading my posts, so there is no further need to continue this discussion after this.
"You think the only torp-users are childish n00bs who are tired of getting blown up?"
No, that isn't what I said. That is a gross simplification of what I said. What I said was, "And I'll even tell you the types of players that will do nothing but Avalon rams in the middle of fights too." None of the players you cite are the sort of players that specialize in nothing but this tactic, and for that matter the tactic is so new and we are in fact testers that I would expect alot of people to try it out. I also expect that if the tactic remains in, alot of people will be willing to do it to 'take one for the team' - at least until those same people just get tired of it and decide they liked capping more before. And finally, there is a very big difference which you don't seem to understand between attempting to hit the opponent with a torp and attempting to ram the opponent with the torp. You make no distinguishment between these two tactics, and I don't know whether Icarus, FM, and the rest where using deliberate suicide tactics or not. There are legitimate ways to use the weapon.
"As for your thought that it's a serco only tactic, well, that's complete you-know-what."
Well, yes it is, because I don't know where you possibly got the idea that I thought it was a Serco only tactic. In fact, I think the tactic probably works just as well or better in a Warthog, AS I SAID EARLIER.
"Maybe it's because when I cap I DON"T LET THE PERSON GET WITHIN 1000M OF ME!"
Now you are just delusional.
"Maybe the fact that I've never been successfully torped while capping may prove my methods."
Oh dear, a proof of the negative. A proof of the general using the specific. There is logic for you.
"So the only vulnerable times are while capping."
Yet another statement based on ignorance.
"...Maybe you should experiment with long distance weapons, with rockets..."
Yeah, sure. Tell rocket boy that he needs to use rockets. That's the solution.
"Maybe you shouldn't wait to engage enemies at 100m."
Yeah, sure, tell the guy that is the oblique pass sniper that he should try to engage enemies at a distance. Geez. Is there a vet out there that doesn't know I'm a horrible circle straffer that is constantly running off on turbo to try to open the distance up?
"You think the only torp-users are childish n00bs who are tired of getting blown up?"
No, that isn't what I said. That is a gross simplification of what I said. What I said was, "And I'll even tell you the types of players that will do nothing but Avalon rams in the middle of fights too." None of the players you cite are the sort of players that specialize in nothing but this tactic, and for that matter the tactic is so new and we are in fact testers that I would expect alot of people to try it out. I also expect that if the tactic remains in, alot of people will be willing to do it to 'take one for the team' - at least until those same people just get tired of it and decide they liked capping more before. And finally, there is a very big difference which you don't seem to understand between attempting to hit the opponent with a torp and attempting to ram the opponent with the torp. You make no distinguishment between these two tactics, and I don't know whether Icarus, FM, and the rest where using deliberate suicide tactics or not. There are legitimate ways to use the weapon.
"As for your thought that it's a serco only tactic, well, that's complete you-know-what."
Well, yes it is, because I don't know where you possibly got the idea that I thought it was a Serco only tactic. In fact, I think the tactic probably works just as well or better in a Warthog, AS I SAID EARLIER.
"Maybe it's because when I cap I DON"T LET THE PERSON GET WITHIN 1000M OF ME!"
Now you are just delusional.
"Maybe the fact that I've never been successfully torped while capping may prove my methods."
Oh dear, a proof of the negative. A proof of the general using the specific. There is logic for you.
"So the only vulnerable times are while capping."
Yet another statement based on ignorance.
"...Maybe you should experiment with long distance weapons, with rockets..."
Yeah, sure. Tell rocket boy that he needs to use rockets. That's the solution.
"Maybe you shouldn't wait to engage enemies at 100m."
Yeah, sure, tell the guy that is the oblique pass sniper that he should try to engage enemies at a distance. Geez. Is there a vet out there that doesn't know I'm a horrible circle straffer that is constantly running off on turbo to try to open the distance up?
Heh. I don't have a dictionairy with me, but as a working definition:
Egregiously: In a particularly unjust and harmful fashion.
Vehemently: With great force.
Compared to early 3.1 rockets, the Avalon lemming is far worse in relative damage, relatively lower skill requirements, and separation required to to avoid the tactic. Compared to latter 3.1 rockets, there really is no comparison. The ammount of time required to spam out enough rockets to lemming a player in late 3.1 more than gave time for the skilled player to get out of the way and deliver a crippling or killing blow in return.
Egregiously: In a particularly unjust and harmful fashion.
Vehemently: With great force.
Compared to early 3.1 rockets, the Avalon lemming is far worse in relative damage, relatively lower skill requirements, and separation required to to avoid the tactic. Compared to latter 3.1 rockets, there really is no comparison. The ammount of time required to spam out enough rockets to lemming a player in late 3.1 more than gave time for the skilled player to get out of the way and deliver a crippling or killing blow in return.
this is a test, i believe that the devs have made money so easy to get specifically so that we CAN buy all the goodies to play with them and find out problems.
Thanks, Celebrim. I completely agree with you on all points here. Please understand that a lot of people may simply be ignorant of the fact that this exploit is in fact occuring. They've simply never been a victim to it, so they really wouldn't have any objection to it. They may or may not eventually see why we're arguing against it. But something obviously has to be done for the interest of keeping gameplay fun and challenging.
At this point I'd like to make a plea towards the devs to provide their insight on the topic. Why were the avalons added? What was their purpose? Were they specialized for larger ships, or were they in fact meant to be used by kamikaze pilots to take down multiple fighters?
If the avalons were in fact meant to be used against capital ships, frigates, carriers, etc. only, then they need to be tweaked in some way to prevent their usage on fighters and bombers (especially when it's kamikaze in nature). Right now the obvious solution to making these weapons specialized towards the bigger ships would be to make them less prone to striking smaller and faster ships. Since these bigger ships will most likely be sluggish, the need for a proximity detonator doesn't seem to be as much of a necessity [sic?] when aiming these. I'm not saying this is the only solution, but it seems like the easiest fix that can be applied to making them specialized.
At this point I'd like to make a plea towards the devs to provide their insight on the topic. Why were the avalons added? What was their purpose? Were they specialized for larger ships, or were they in fact meant to be used by kamikaze pilots to take down multiple fighters?
If the avalons were in fact meant to be used against capital ships, frigates, carriers, etc. only, then they need to be tweaked in some way to prevent their usage on fighters and bombers (especially when it's kamikaze in nature). Right now the obvious solution to making these weapons specialized towards the bigger ships would be to make them less prone to striking smaller and faster ships. Since these bigger ships will most likely be sluggish, the need for a proximity detonator doesn't seem to be as much of a necessity [sic?] when aiming these. I'm not saying this is the only solution, but it seems like the easiest fix that can be applied to making them specialized.
Celebrim,
thx for the explication.
on the accounts of the rockets in 3.1, you are right, but it was just to prove a little point, namely that people who are complaining now about it not being a problem and a viable tactic, that these weapons are even worse then the previous rockets who were considered an exploit if used in that way. Like for instance the dumping of multiple rockets at the same time from close range "sometimes even 7".
ay, I completely agree with you arolte, that was why I made that little remark about the devs :D, maybe they would notice it then and even in their infinite goodwillingness post a little remark :D
cheers
EDIT: besides were rockets not unguided and therefore explosive on contact. Aren't torpedo's exactly the same as a rocket only bigger and meaner? Cele ?
thx for the explication.
on the accounts of the rockets in 3.1, you are right, but it was just to prove a little point, namely that people who are complaining now about it not being a problem and a viable tactic, that these weapons are even worse then the previous rockets who were considered an exploit if used in that way. Like for instance the dumping of multiple rockets at the same time from close range "sometimes even 7".
ay, I completely agree with you arolte, that was why I made that little remark about the devs :D, maybe they would notice it then and even in their infinite goodwillingness post a little remark :D
cheers
EDIT: besides were rockets not unguided and therefore explosive on contact. Aren't torpedo's exactly the same as a rocket only bigger and meaner? Cele ?
actually arolte: the problem doesn't seem to be with the proximity detonator.. it's with the launch ship getting to within the proximity before firing. An arming time would seem to me to be the best way to go about fixing this. if the missile has to be in flight for 10 seconds before it can go off, suicide strikes are no longer an option. (this would also add a level of skill to dive bombing capital ships with them)
Celebrim you are right, you didn't say anything about about being able to survive the Avalon delivery. I should have addressed that directly to Arolte. And yes, you have said a lot about the rail gun, no, I don't read it all, nobody does. It would be equivalent of reading the Manhattan Yellow Pages... slightly amusing with long stretches of 'meh'. You just said it yet again yourself in very denial of what I said. Because I was so "EGREGIOUSLY" off-base only a paragraph or so later you say "What I said was that the rail gun was not in and of itself unbalanced. It was unbalanced because it could be used in combination well." and so on and so on, as you talk about all the changes you might "allow" to be made to it so that it could be more balanced when used in mulitples. So it wasn't then balanced was it? If you have to change parameters so that its not a rail-fest out there is it balanced? Right... so here's the lesson for you IF YOU FOLLOW... say what you mean instead of trying to wow your reader and stretch out your point so you can dazzle people with your amazing intelligence.
All you had to say about the Avalon was the one sentence that you did say. "There are ways to modify the Torps so that they are less useful for Kamikazi but still useful in various roles."
But instead your making broad statements based on no (oops sorry! very little) experience within the actual game of Vendetta. I appreciate some of what you have said. You have some good points about Kamikazes and why someone might do it. But roguelazer also has good points and ones that are more based on actual experience and fact rather than a hypothesis about what might happen.
If I downloaded 3.2.2 tomorrow and there was a timer fuse on it like you said, that wouldn't bother me at all. Its not a huge deal either way yet. But I think that more time should be given to experiment with tactics because all someone has shown here is that they got blown up during a flag capture and people use them to be morons and station camp and perhaps invul. exploit. Like I said, those people should be shot and left on the side of the road. And in other posts we have already established that a framework solution to that is in the works by the devs.
To have a solution you need a problem. What you are talking about is a potential problem. Now, do YOU follow?
When this game turns into an Avalon-fest you let me know. When everyone and their mother is carrying their hideously unbalanced Avalon launcher and lighting up whole sqauds of vets... Go on, I'll give you my number and you can call me up and tell me what an idiot I am, and how no one listens to you. But until then...
All you had to say about the Avalon was the one sentence that you did say. "There are ways to modify the Torps so that they are less useful for Kamikazi but still useful in various roles."
But instead your making broad statements based on no (oops sorry! very little) experience within the actual game of Vendetta. I appreciate some of what you have said. You have some good points about Kamikazes and why someone might do it. But roguelazer also has good points and ones that are more based on actual experience and fact rather than a hypothesis about what might happen.
If I downloaded 3.2.2 tomorrow and there was a timer fuse on it like you said, that wouldn't bother me at all. Its not a huge deal either way yet. But I think that more time should be given to experiment with tactics because all someone has shown here is that they got blown up during a flag capture and people use them to be morons and station camp and perhaps invul. exploit. Like I said, those people should be shot and left on the side of the road. And in other posts we have already established that a framework solution to that is in the works by the devs.
To have a solution you need a problem. What you are talking about is a potential problem. Now, do YOU follow?
When this game turns into an Avalon-fest you let me know. When everyone and their mother is carrying their hideously unbalanced Avalon launcher and lighting up whole sqauds of vets... Go on, I'll give you my number and you can call me up and tell me what an idiot I am, and how no one listens to you. But until then...
asks Rambones number , calls him up and shouts what a big idiot you are :D :D :D
"lol"
cheers
PS: lighten up it is just a game ;)
"lol"
cheers
PS: lighten up it is just a game ;)
/me drops one end of the thread in Dover, the other in Calais, opens a highway bridge.
me rolls the little bridge up and says, don't do that.
makes a little ship to roll on the waves
wheee, see the people laughing in place of bickering :D
cheers
makes a little ship to roll on the waves
wheee, see the people laughing in place of bickering :D
cheers
Rambones: I am not going out of my way to demonstrate superior intellect or otherwise show off. I do at times try to reinforce the idea that I do have some prior experience with games, as for example in the discussing the problems with TvX because I believe it is a relevant point (as you do yourself apparently). I am certainly not modifying my choice of vocabulary in any way to dazzle anyone. This is my normal conversational writing, and very little different from the way I would address you face to face.
This is normal for me.
I'm sorry I'm spammy, but I believe the truth is often complex and that most simple statements (including this one) require qualification.
That and I type 60 words a minute.
I do my very best to say _exactly_ what I mean, and that is why my posts are long and why I get somewhat irratated when my comments are truncated and placed out of context.
I'm sure somewhere out there you can snip a sentence of mine that says, "I think railguns are balanced as is." But if you leave out a qualifier like, "But, only when used one at a time.", "The problem is not merely with the railgun but the game universe in which the railgun is set." then you are reversing the meaning of my sentence by quoting it out of context in order to make me appear stupid. The whole rest of the post was about making changes to the game and why and why those changes should not be ones that nerf the railgun as some others had suggested.
I'm inclined to think that it was not the opinions of those that said that the railgun needed to cost 200 energy to fire which were vindicated in that debate.
My character has been rated between 30th and 15th for most of 3.2. I've been here since 3.1.1, and my character then was rated in the top 25 for most of that period. Its not like I don't have some reasonably high level of experience with _this_ game, much less games in general. Arolte, who basically shares my opinion, has been top 5 for most of the time I've been here. Your argument makes even less sense with regard to him.
This is normal for me.
I'm sorry I'm spammy, but I believe the truth is often complex and that most simple statements (including this one) require qualification.
That and I type 60 words a minute.
I do my very best to say _exactly_ what I mean, and that is why my posts are long and why I get somewhat irratated when my comments are truncated and placed out of context.
I'm sure somewhere out there you can snip a sentence of mine that says, "I think railguns are balanced as is." But if you leave out a qualifier like, "But, only when used one at a time.", "The problem is not merely with the railgun but the game universe in which the railgun is set." then you are reversing the meaning of my sentence by quoting it out of context in order to make me appear stupid. The whole rest of the post was about making changes to the game and why and why those changes should not be ones that nerf the railgun as some others had suggested.
I'm inclined to think that it was not the opinions of those that said that the railgun needed to cost 200 energy to fire which were vindicated in that debate.
My character has been rated between 30th and 15th for most of 3.2. I've been here since 3.1.1, and my character then was rated in the top 25 for most of that period. Its not like I don't have some reasonably high level of experience with _this_ game, much less games in general. Arolte, who basically shares my opinion, has been top 5 for most of the time I've been here. Your argument makes even less sense with regard to him.