Forums » Suggestions
Urza: "Dont touch the ships!!! they all have their uses. i saw a centurian take out a1's uber ship with out getting hit. and a1 had a 360° auto aim turret.
DONT TOUCH THE SHIPS. other than the prom, they're all balanced if you ask me. Any good pilot in any ship can take out anything but the prom."
Yeah, well I took out a Centurian armed with a beam cannon without getting hit. Either example proves nothing. Yes, they all can be used. That proves nothing. For one thing, I might note that the auto aim isn't all that good versus human targets and that to a certain extent 360 degree auto aim is a weakness versus anything that can move quickly. Not that I can't think of some abusable tactics for ships with 360 degree auto aim, a1k0n just wasn't using his ship to its full potential. My point is that if it can be done in a Centurian that it pretty much can be done more safely and with more punch in a Valkyrie.
I can take out Promys. All you need is better than a 2:1 damage ratio, and that isn't that hard with the right weapons load out and some dodging. I don't know why you think that they are all that unbalanced compared to other special ships. Granted, I haven't faced a real quality pilot in a Promy, but in that case it would probably be the pilot beating me not the ship. I have heard tales of Promy's getting beaten by Centurians.
I have to laugh at Freeman when he says that he agrees with you because he can take out most anything in a Valk. What does that prove? Well in part, that the special ships are more powerful than the non-special ships, which is the exact opposite of claiming that all the ships are balanced.
The three special ships are mostly balanced vs. each other, but not versus the other ships and the other ships are only somewhat balanced versus each other. However, because of the limited weapons packages of the non-special ships for the most part they are more boring to fly and have more simplistic tactics than the 3.1 era ships. Remember, a 3.1 era 'light' typically mounted 2S and 1L weapons (basically tachyons, gemini's, and jackhammers). And that's ignoring the fact that blue ions are better than tachy's by quite a bit. A 3.1 era 'medium' typically mounted 2S and 3L weapons. A 3.1 era 'heavy' typically mounted 2S and 4L weapons (basically tachyons, gemini's, jackhammers, locust swarms, lightning mines, and prox mines). I'm not suggesting we need to go back to those load outs, because specialization is such a powerful advantage. Almost no one with 2S and 4L slots to fill would waste them with 6 different weapons. I am suggesting that reduced weapon variaty leads to less interesting duels.
If all the ships truly had thier uses as you say, then Freeman would not make the completely correct claim that almost noone uses the non-specials _already_. How many Wraiths have you ever seen in the hands of experienced pilots? How many Centaurs do you see now that the Pizza Cutter is available to everyone? How many Centurians, Vultures, and Hogs do you think we are going to be using in another week or two once everyone that cares (and anyone on Gold) has the cash to buy 20 Valks? I think you will still see the occasional Ragnarok or Hornet, because I think those designs have always had firepower advantages nothing else could offer - not even specials. But even those will fade in the long run because the firepower advantage is mostly illusionary.
Nothing I'm suggesting is going to obsolete any craft. Do you honestly think that more ships will be clearly inferior under this plan than they are at present? Do you honestly think that we will see less ship diversity than we see at present if I give Centurians a second weapon slot or Vultures a third weapon slot, or will it not in fact give more people a reason to use Vultures and Centurians? Do you think I would trade my 3 gun, 12k h.p., very high manueverable Valk for either a 2 gun Centurian or a 3 gun Vulture? Propostrous. I wouldn't even trade my Valk for a 2 gun Centurian even if my Valk had 'only' 8k h.p. I'd still be giving up a gun and 1500 h.p. Would I trade my 8k h.p. Valk for a 3 gun Vulture? Probably not, because I've still got a slight manueverability advantage on the Vulture. But needless to say, both ships would become much more viable anti-Valk ships for any non-blue, and credible threats from a blue n00b that is hesitant to shell out 20k more for a ship hull.
DONT TOUCH THE SHIPS. other than the prom, they're all balanced if you ask me. Any good pilot in any ship can take out anything but the prom."
Yeah, well I took out a Centurian armed with a beam cannon without getting hit. Either example proves nothing. Yes, they all can be used. That proves nothing. For one thing, I might note that the auto aim isn't all that good versus human targets and that to a certain extent 360 degree auto aim is a weakness versus anything that can move quickly. Not that I can't think of some abusable tactics for ships with 360 degree auto aim, a1k0n just wasn't using his ship to its full potential. My point is that if it can be done in a Centurian that it pretty much can be done more safely and with more punch in a Valkyrie.
I can take out Promys. All you need is better than a 2:1 damage ratio, and that isn't that hard with the right weapons load out and some dodging. I don't know why you think that they are all that unbalanced compared to other special ships. Granted, I haven't faced a real quality pilot in a Promy, but in that case it would probably be the pilot beating me not the ship. I have heard tales of Promy's getting beaten by Centurians.
I have to laugh at Freeman when he says that he agrees with you because he can take out most anything in a Valk. What does that prove? Well in part, that the special ships are more powerful than the non-special ships, which is the exact opposite of claiming that all the ships are balanced.
The three special ships are mostly balanced vs. each other, but not versus the other ships and the other ships are only somewhat balanced versus each other. However, because of the limited weapons packages of the non-special ships for the most part they are more boring to fly and have more simplistic tactics than the 3.1 era ships. Remember, a 3.1 era 'light' typically mounted 2S and 1L weapons (basically tachyons, gemini's, and jackhammers). And that's ignoring the fact that blue ions are better than tachy's by quite a bit. A 3.1 era 'medium' typically mounted 2S and 3L weapons. A 3.1 era 'heavy' typically mounted 2S and 4L weapons (basically tachyons, gemini's, jackhammers, locust swarms, lightning mines, and prox mines). I'm not suggesting we need to go back to those load outs, because specialization is such a powerful advantage. Almost no one with 2S and 4L slots to fill would waste them with 6 different weapons. I am suggesting that reduced weapon variaty leads to less interesting duels.
If all the ships truly had thier uses as you say, then Freeman would not make the completely correct claim that almost noone uses the non-specials _already_. How many Wraiths have you ever seen in the hands of experienced pilots? How many Centaurs do you see now that the Pizza Cutter is available to everyone? How many Centurians, Vultures, and Hogs do you think we are going to be using in another week or two once everyone that cares (and anyone on Gold) has the cash to buy 20 Valks? I think you will still see the occasional Ragnarok or Hornet, because I think those designs have always had firepower advantages nothing else could offer - not even specials. But even those will fade in the long run because the firepower advantage is mostly illusionary.
Nothing I'm suggesting is going to obsolete any craft. Do you honestly think that more ships will be clearly inferior under this plan than they are at present? Do you honestly think that we will see less ship diversity than we see at present if I give Centurians a second weapon slot or Vultures a third weapon slot, or will it not in fact give more people a reason to use Vultures and Centurians? Do you think I would trade my 3 gun, 12k h.p., very high manueverable Valk for either a 2 gun Centurian or a 3 gun Vulture? Propostrous. I wouldn't even trade my Valk for a 2 gun Centurian even if my Valk had 'only' 8k h.p. I'd still be giving up a gun and 1500 h.p. Would I trade my 8k h.p. Valk for a 3 gun Vulture? Probably not, because I've still got a slight manueverability advantage on the Vulture. But needless to say, both ships would become much more viable anti-Valk ships for any non-blue, and credible threats from a blue n00b that is hesitant to shell out 20k more for a ship hull.
Here's another thought: Abolish unguided rockets. Vendetta isn't Q3A.
It makes no sense to me why a spacefaring civilization would have unguided rockets or warheads of any sort - after all, you don't see unguided weapons in use much even here on Earth any more.
It makes no sense to me why a spacefaring civilization would have unguided rockets or warheads of any sort - after all, you don't see unguided weapons in use much even here on Earth any more.
Place to place ballistics, point, shoot. Maybe there will be intersector weapons mounted on cap ships. (well, advanced cap ships.)
I still think that a nation's special is A NATION'S SPECIAL. A valk SHOULDn't be avalible to gold or red. Same way fo all the other specials.
And why get rid of unguided weapons?? I'll bet that there will always be unguided sticks tossed at stuff.
And why get rid of unguided weapons?? I'll bet that there will always be unguided sticks tossed at stuff.
Yeah...just remember how technologically advanced a stick is compared to a spacefaring civilization.
On the other hand, being able to get out of your cockpit and throw asteroid bits at passing ships would be disturbingly funny :P
I think Vendetta should have a black market.
On the other hand, being able to get out of your cockpit and throw asteroid bits at passing ships would be disturbingly funny :P
I think Vendetta should have a black market.
ummm I dont see how triple sunflares are un-fair, the rockets are so dreadfully slow that anyone in a medium agility ship could dodge them...
Allthough I think it WOULD be nice to see an increase in speed, and say a maximum of 2 launchers/ship?
I think that the availability of all ships to all members of all nations is bad. Nation specials should be stupidly rare if you are of enemy allegiance to the one you wish to obtain. Saying that, making ALL ships balanced is bad. There needs to be something to earn for, something to work towards. I remember seeing the new-style Serco Prometheus for the first time, and I WANTED ONE. All mine, I thought. No Khral cheap rockets, no White Magic surprise assaults. Nothing would be able to touch me, and Id be able to become a decent pilot in peace.
I imagine the same feeling in golds as they cast eyes on the Marauder. 'RICH! RICH IM GONNA BE! RICH!' Or the blues and their Valks. 'Hey, the new Vulture looks good... whats that ship? OH MY GOD GIMME GIMME GIMME'
The point is that making all nations equal in every way, or all weapons equal in every way, takes spice from the game. You want ships flying round that you see and go 'oooo )£%", im not gonna even bother attacking him' because you can see from their armaments how hard they have toiled to get such a ship.
So I propose the following. Firstly, on the sunflares issue... the so-called ammo pool discussed isnt a good idea. It negates the advantage of several weapon ports. But what if you made it impossible to put them in the same weapon group? Only one sunflare could be fired at a time? Think about it.
Secondly, 15 should be made practically inaccessible. A wormhole that opens periodically, for maybe half an hour a day, or shoving some uber-bots in there, or something. Its way too easy to grab yourself a whole bunch of prommies or valks or pizza-cutters atm and just replace them when you want to by strolling back through to 15 when you die. So. It should NOT be possible to make it a home sector, or anything like that. Not just ships, but EVERYTHING should be 3x the price there... vastly increasing costs of purchasing an enemy's special.
But... the cost of all ships should be increased anyway. Im talking like 10 times what they are now. As it stands, some weapons are more expensive than the hulls. Wrong, all wrong. A ship should show the experience of the player.
I imagine the same feeling in golds as they cast eyes on the Marauder. 'RICH! RICH IM GONNA BE! RICH!' Or the blues and their Valks. 'Hey, the new Vulture looks good... whats that ship? OH MY GOD GIMME GIMME GIMME'
The point is that making all nations equal in every way, or all weapons equal in every way, takes spice from the game. You want ships flying round that you see and go 'oooo )£%", im not gonna even bother attacking him' because you can see from their armaments how hard they have toiled to get such a ship.
So I propose the following. Firstly, on the sunflares issue... the so-called ammo pool discussed isnt a good idea. It negates the advantage of several weapon ports. But what if you made it impossible to put them in the same weapon group? Only one sunflare could be fired at a time? Think about it.
Secondly, 15 should be made practically inaccessible. A wormhole that opens periodically, for maybe half an hour a day, or shoving some uber-bots in there, or something. Its way too easy to grab yourself a whole bunch of prommies or valks or pizza-cutters atm and just replace them when you want to by strolling back through to 15 when you die. So. It should NOT be possible to make it a home sector, or anything like that. Not just ships, but EVERYTHING should be 3x the price there... vastly increasing costs of purchasing an enemy's special.
But... the cost of all ships should be increased anyway. Im talking like 10 times what they are now. As it stands, some weapons are more expensive than the hulls. Wrong, all wrong. A ship should show the experience of the player.
I think we are getting distracted from the main topic. People are raising interesting points, but they don't necessarily have alot to do with the thread Arolte started.
If we want to discuss how much things should cost, that should be another thread.
If we want to discuss to what extent the weapons in Vendetta should be realistic ones for a space faring culture, that should be another thread.
If we want to discuss RP issues like the accessibility of weapons, that should be another thread.
Those are all interesting topics, but if we open every thread to such a wide variaty of topics we will never reach a consensus on anything.
As I see it, this topic is about the Valkyrie, the Sunflare, mulitple Sunflares, and the combination of the two and that's what we should stick to. So basically, this is a thread about ship balance, weapon balance, and balance issues arising from complete configurability.
My positions:
1) The Valkyrie is not balanced with the other ships.
2) The Sunflare is well balanced or else nearly enough well balanced that we shouldn't change it further until bigger issues are resolved.
3) Alot of the problem arises from the fact that we have only two types of weapon ports. Alot of the problem would go away if we added 'small rocket ports' or 'medium ports' or otherwise limited configurability and the ability to specialize to a full degree. I have been saying as far back as October that if we switched to a system in which you could put any weapon in any slot (or worse yet used a mass based or volumn based customization system) you'd see alot of ship's armed with nothing but rockets. However, I'm not going to come out and say that we can't balance the two port system just yet, because it seems to be something that the devs really want.
Feel free to challenge any or all of those.
If we want to discuss how much things should cost, that should be another thread.
If we want to discuss to what extent the weapons in Vendetta should be realistic ones for a space faring culture, that should be another thread.
If we want to discuss RP issues like the accessibility of weapons, that should be another thread.
Those are all interesting topics, but if we open every thread to such a wide variaty of topics we will never reach a consensus on anything.
As I see it, this topic is about the Valkyrie, the Sunflare, mulitple Sunflares, and the combination of the two and that's what we should stick to. So basically, this is a thread about ship balance, weapon balance, and balance issues arising from complete configurability.
My positions:
1) The Valkyrie is not balanced with the other ships.
2) The Sunflare is well balanced or else nearly enough well balanced that we shouldn't change it further until bigger issues are resolved.
3) Alot of the problem arises from the fact that we have only two types of weapon ports. Alot of the problem would go away if we added 'small rocket ports' or 'medium ports' or otherwise limited configurability and the ability to specialize to a full degree. I have been saying as far back as October that if we switched to a system in which you could put any weapon in any slot (or worse yet used a mass based or volumn based customization system) you'd see alot of ship's armed with nothing but rockets. However, I'm not going to come out and say that we can't balance the two port system just yet, because it seems to be something that the devs really want.
Feel free to challenge any or all of those.
Oh god, I hear another nerf ball heading towards the valk...
So do I, Suicidal Lemming...so do I.
Now that I have one (from s15), I'm sorry I never tried to speak up against initial nerfing.
Now that I have one (from s15), I'm sorry I never tried to speak up against initial nerfing.
1) The Valkyrie is not balanced with the other ships.
Yah, a hornet can take one down. (if you have skill) The prometheus can turn like the centaur, has double the health of the centaur, has 2 more small slots then the centaur, but has one less large slot then the centaur.
Oh wait, everyone can own the ships, oh wait then why are you complaining about the valk?
2) The Sunflare is well balanced or else nearly enough well balanced that we shouldn't change it further until bigger issues are resolved.
Ok, yah, but if you have to be really close to someone to get a good chance of hit them, the speed needs to be upped a bit, i say 5-10ms. Why does something unguided move slower then something guided? something guided has to manuver, thus makeing it go slower due to the fact it has a turnable engine, rockets do not, saving room for more engine power.
Also it neads to have its reload time shaved, A BIT, it is what now? 2 per second, i say 1.5 per second.
3) Alot of the problem arises from the fact that we have only two types of weapon ports.
I agree, we need small, medium, and large, here is my ideas
Small:
The first few energy weapons, up to tachyon, not includeing tachyon blaster.
Only those, no ammo weapons as ammo takes room.
Medium:
Gauss cannon
Rail gun
Sunflare rockets
Gemini missles
Yellow Jacket missles
One energy weapon, looks like it would be a big contraption to take up that much energy, then the ammo users, light rounds packing low yeild warheads, nothing compared to the nuke.
Large:
The rest of the weapons.
Most of these weapons require large amounts of energy, the avalons need 100e per pop; screamers need a load, not sure on the number; plasma needs 70 e per pop: Other weapons have massive warheads, or numerous warheads, or high danger warheads, so they need a lot of room to be safe, like swarmers, mines, and avalons.
Yah, a hornet can take one down. (if you have skill) The prometheus can turn like the centaur, has double the health of the centaur, has 2 more small slots then the centaur, but has one less large slot then the centaur.
Oh wait, everyone can own the ships, oh wait then why are you complaining about the valk?
2) The Sunflare is well balanced or else nearly enough well balanced that we shouldn't change it further until bigger issues are resolved.
Ok, yah, but if you have to be really close to someone to get a good chance of hit them, the speed needs to be upped a bit, i say 5-10ms. Why does something unguided move slower then something guided? something guided has to manuver, thus makeing it go slower due to the fact it has a turnable engine, rockets do not, saving room for more engine power.
Also it neads to have its reload time shaved, A BIT, it is what now? 2 per second, i say 1.5 per second.
3) Alot of the problem arises from the fact that we have only two types of weapon ports.
I agree, we need small, medium, and large, here is my ideas
Small:
The first few energy weapons, up to tachyon, not includeing tachyon blaster.
Only those, no ammo weapons as ammo takes room.
Medium:
Gauss cannon
Rail gun
Sunflare rockets
Gemini missles
Yellow Jacket missles
One energy weapon, looks like it would be a big contraption to take up that much energy, then the ammo users, light rounds packing low yeild warheads, nothing compared to the nuke.
Large:
The rest of the weapons.
Most of these weapons require large amounts of energy, the avalons need 100e per pop; screamers need a load, not sure on the number; plasma needs 70 e per pop: Other weapons have massive warheads, or numerous warheads, or high danger warheads, so they need a lot of room to be safe, like swarmers, mines, and avalons.
"It makes no sense to me why a spacefaring civilization would have unguided rockets or warheads of any sort - after all, you don't see unguided weapons in use much even here on Earth any more"
Zunni rockets anyone? Oh umm bombs? Let's see... what else can I think of off the top of my head :D
As far as the specials NOT being balanced against the non's... IMNSHO, they shouldn't be. As far as all nations owning each of the specials... FOR NOW, it gives the devs MORE testers for EACH of the specials so that we can find out problems.
Zunni rockets anyone? Oh umm bombs? Let's see... what else can I think of off the top of my head :D
As far as the specials NOT being balanced against the non's... IMNSHO, they shouldn't be. As far as all nations owning each of the specials... FOR NOW, it gives the devs MORE testers for EACH of the specials so that we can find out problems.
SL: Oh please. So a Hornet could possibly take down a Valk. That proves nothing. Any Hornet pilot good enough to beat me 50% of the time in my Valk would beat me 100% of the time if I had to take a Hornet up against him in a Valk in a fair fight. Compared to a Hornet I've got 2000 more hit points and two steps worth of manueverablity. The Hornet has an extra weapons slot which it really can't take that much advantage of because we both have one battery slot (and no it wouldn't be fair to give the Hornet two, but that's another topic). The Hornet is not balanced vs. the Valk. It's not even close. Ever since the rail got nerfed I've never lost to a Hornet.
The centaur is supposed to be a transport. Compare the Promy to a Ragnarok for a better comparison. Even then, the Promy is more powerful. Again, the Rag really can't take advantage of those extra weapon slots, and has to do twice the damage to the Promy that the Promy does to it. Even so, the Promy and the Rag are much much more closely balanced than the Valk and the Vulture or the Valk and the Centurian. Not only does the Valk have about 3 times the firepower of the Centurian, but it had nearly twice the hit points.
"Oh wait, everyone can own the ships, oh wait then why are you complaining about the valk?"
This is one of those questions that so misses the point that its not even worth answering, but I'll try to anyway. Suppose we only had once ship. What would be the point of complaining about it?
"Ok, yah, but if you have to be really close to someone to get a good chance of hit them, the speed needs to be upped a bit..."
Err.. could it be that this could be part of why they are balanced? Look, I've got homework I'm doing or we could get into a big discussion about triangles, velocities, and accuracy, but since we can't I'll just keep this simple. You not only give the wrong reason for why guided weapons are slower than unguided ones (I'll give you two hints, real guided missiles don't have much less need turnable engines, and this game doesn't use completely realistic physics), but in discussing the balancing of something that is nearly balanced in a completely unbalanced universe you propose TWO contridictory changes (one up and one down) as a fix before discussing fixing underlying problems.
I won't bother with the rest of your post except to say that even if you are right and more slot types is the best way to go there isn't alot of reason to lump weapons which can't be combined in multiples in a particularly useful fashion (say a gauss cannon) into a separate slot and there is even less reason to start doing so when so many weapons are under efficient and basically useless anyway. Lets try balancing without more slots first, if only because it means we don't have to completely redecide on how many slots each ship should have.
The centaur is supposed to be a transport. Compare the Promy to a Ragnarok for a better comparison. Even then, the Promy is more powerful. Again, the Rag really can't take advantage of those extra weapon slots, and has to do twice the damage to the Promy that the Promy does to it. Even so, the Promy and the Rag are much much more closely balanced than the Valk and the Vulture or the Valk and the Centurian. Not only does the Valk have about 3 times the firepower of the Centurian, but it had nearly twice the hit points.
"Oh wait, everyone can own the ships, oh wait then why are you complaining about the valk?"
This is one of those questions that so misses the point that its not even worth answering, but I'll try to anyway. Suppose we only had once ship. What would be the point of complaining about it?
"Ok, yah, but if you have to be really close to someone to get a good chance of hit them, the speed needs to be upped a bit..."
Err.. could it be that this could be part of why they are balanced? Look, I've got homework I'm doing or we could get into a big discussion about triangles, velocities, and accuracy, but since we can't I'll just keep this simple. You not only give the wrong reason for why guided weapons are slower than unguided ones (I'll give you two hints, real guided missiles don't have much less need turnable engines, and this game doesn't use completely realistic physics), but in discussing the balancing of something that is nearly balanced in a completely unbalanced universe you propose TWO contridictory changes (one up and one down) as a fix before discussing fixing underlying problems.
I won't bother with the rest of your post except to say that even if you are right and more slot types is the best way to go there isn't alot of reason to lump weapons which can't be combined in multiples in a particularly useful fashion (say a gauss cannon) into a separate slot and there is even less reason to start doing so when so many weapons are under efficient and basically useless anyway. Lets try balancing without more slots first, if only because it means we don't have to completely redecide on how many slots each ship should have.
If we currently can make ships that reach escape velocity, (11100 m/s) (that is on earth) why can't we make a simple rocket that goes 85ms?
Calebri, the fighters are balanced, there is lvl 1, 6000 health 1 slot, lvl 2 9000 helath, 2 slots, and lvl 3, 12000, 3 slots. There is a pattern, lvl 4 would be 15000 with 4 slots.
Oh and, when did triangles come into this discussion? ;-)
Calebri, the fighters are balanced, there is lvl 1, 6000 health 1 slot, lvl 2 9000 helath, 2 slots, and lvl 3, 12000, 3 slots. There is a pattern, lvl 4 would be 15000 with 4 slots.
Oh and, when did triangles come into this discussion? ;-)
"If we currently can make ships that reach escape velocity, (11100 m/s) (that is on earth) why can't we make a simple rocket that goes 85ms?"
There is another question that has so much wrong with it I hardly know where to begin. Look at it this way. In the modern world we have a 70 ton tank with a top speed of nearly 60 mph that can hit a tank sized target while moving at over a mile away consistantly. It's guns maximum effective range is nearly 5 miles, and the maximum flight of its projectile is roughly 60 miles. At a mile of distance the gun can easily penetrate two feet of steel.
So the next time you play Battletech you should tell them you want an M1A1 - a 70 ton tank with 6/9 speed, a targeting computer, and a gun that does around 50 damage and has an extreme range of 500 or so hexes. You should easily be able to kill an entire battalion of '31st century' mechs with it. Of course, the next night everyone will bring M1A1 tanks and then you will discover something. The game is more fun if you ignore reality. If everyone has M1A1 tanks (or other modern tanks), your manuever won't have as big of a role as it does in Btech because among other things you won't be able to move through a significant portion of another guns range and survive. All guns are 'long range guns'. For another you will notice that basically the winner is decided by a single dice roll. You miss the first time, and you can be pretty sure you've lost. In other words, the designers of btech knew what they were doing and the original 3025 era Btech is an excellent example of building a pen and paper game to minimize the influence of luck and build into the weapons various tradeoffs.
"Calebri, the fighters are balanced, there is lvl 1, 6000 health 1 slot, lvl 2 9000 helath, 2 slots, and lvl 3, 12000, 3 slots."
Well, first, if that were true the Vulture would have Very High manueverability. Secondly, if that were true than a lvl 10 fighter with 33,000 armor and 10 slots would be balanced with the rest of the ships. That's not how balance works. Balance says that for everything you gain in one category, you give up something of equal value in another.
And note lastly that I'm not even suggesting 'nerfing' the special ships. They would _still_ be clearly better than the non-specials. I'm just suggesting toning down the difference to a more managible (and in my opinion more entertaining) level.
There is another question that has so much wrong with it I hardly know where to begin. Look at it this way. In the modern world we have a 70 ton tank with a top speed of nearly 60 mph that can hit a tank sized target while moving at over a mile away consistantly. It's guns maximum effective range is nearly 5 miles, and the maximum flight of its projectile is roughly 60 miles. At a mile of distance the gun can easily penetrate two feet of steel.
So the next time you play Battletech you should tell them you want an M1A1 - a 70 ton tank with 6/9 speed, a targeting computer, and a gun that does around 50 damage and has an extreme range of 500 or so hexes. You should easily be able to kill an entire battalion of '31st century' mechs with it. Of course, the next night everyone will bring M1A1 tanks and then you will discover something. The game is more fun if you ignore reality. If everyone has M1A1 tanks (or other modern tanks), your manuever won't have as big of a role as it does in Btech because among other things you won't be able to move through a significant portion of another guns range and survive. All guns are 'long range guns'. For another you will notice that basically the winner is decided by a single dice roll. You miss the first time, and you can be pretty sure you've lost. In other words, the designers of btech knew what they were doing and the original 3025 era Btech is an excellent example of building a pen and paper game to minimize the influence of luck and build into the weapons various tradeoffs.
"Calebri, the fighters are balanced, there is lvl 1, 6000 health 1 slot, lvl 2 9000 helath, 2 slots, and lvl 3, 12000, 3 slots."
Well, first, if that were true the Vulture would have Very High manueverability. Secondly, if that were true than a lvl 10 fighter with 33,000 armor and 10 slots would be balanced with the rest of the ships. That's not how balance works. Balance says that for everything you gain in one category, you give up something of equal value in another.
And note lastly that I'm not even suggesting 'nerfing' the special ships. They would _still_ be clearly better than the non-specials. I'm just suggesting toning down the difference to a more managible (and in my opinion more entertaining) level.
So you want a good pilot in a bus to be able to take down an okay pilot in a valk.
I dont think so
/me catches the nerfball and sets it a flame, singing, "Nerfball Nerfball go away, stay back from the valks...everyday!" :D
I dont think so
/me catches the nerfball and sets it a flame, singing, "Nerfball Nerfball go away, stay back from the valks...everyday!" :D
"So you want a good pilot in a bus to be able to take down an okay pilot in a valk."
Did I say that? No, I didn't think so. That is called 'setting up a straw man arguement'. I am not allowed to tell you exactly what I think of that sort of behavior on this board except to say that the rest of your post reads like a something a elementary school kid would shout on a playground.
As I said not 3 sentences back, I'm not suggesting nerfing the specials, nor did anywhere I suggest improving the bus. There doesn't have to be perfect parity, just enough that things are interesting. There doesn't have to be perfect parity, just enough that a broad range of styles is supported. There doesn't have to be perfect parity, but the more ships you have which are subperformers, the more ships and ship models and effort you are _wasting_ in a multiplayer context simply because in the long run they won't be used enough to justify the work you put into creating them.
Are you really afraid that you are going to be beaten by a guy flying a bus? Is your ego that really that delicate or are you just deliberately slandering me? Do you have so little faith in your own skills that you don't think you could win if you weren't flying an uber-ship? Or are you one of those people who thinks that it would be cool if you could get the super special extreme secret fighter with 100,000 h.p., 8 batteries, 32 large weapon slots, and a uber-colosal thunder yamamoto beam cannon? Gah.
Did I say that? No, I didn't think so. That is called 'setting up a straw man arguement'. I am not allowed to tell you exactly what I think of that sort of behavior on this board except to say that the rest of your post reads like a something a elementary school kid would shout on a playground.
As I said not 3 sentences back, I'm not suggesting nerfing the specials, nor did anywhere I suggest improving the bus. There doesn't have to be perfect parity, just enough that things are interesting. There doesn't have to be perfect parity, just enough that a broad range of styles is supported. There doesn't have to be perfect parity, but the more ships you have which are subperformers, the more ships and ship models and effort you are _wasting_ in a multiplayer context simply because in the long run they won't be used enough to justify the work you put into creating them.
Are you really afraid that you are going to be beaten by a guy flying a bus? Is your ego that really that delicate or are you just deliberately slandering me? Do you have so little faith in your own skills that you don't think you could win if you weren't flying an uber-ship? Or are you one of those people who thinks that it would be cool if you could get the super special extreme secret fighter with 100,000 h.p., 8 batteries, 32 large weapon slots, and a uber-colosal thunder yamamoto beam cannon? Gah.
celebrim
if you watch at every RPG, then you try to go for the supa duppa 2 handed sword with dispell magic on every touch and a nice enchantment on top of it. If I'm sure youc already know, in an RPG you quest for the best items available, and you stand in awe when somebody has got it.
I'm pretty sure the devs know about this and will make the specials only accessible through missions that you have to complete and so on. Besides it's a special , it shouldn't be balanced against a normal weapon. Because in your thinking you would chose between level 1 weapons , level 2 weapons or lvl 3 weapons oh and the normal ones. But like you know, in every RPG once you got a lvl1 weapon, then you don't use the lvl0 weapon anymore, if you get the lvl 2 weapons, then you don't use the lvl1 weapons anymore except maybe in some matters, where you need a specific weapon to be able to obliterate a certain adversarie "for instance duel , mission, ..."
Like you know in an RPG, a flail is balanced with a long sword, but a flail isn't balanced to a long sword+1, if you are able to take it, then you prefer the long sword+1. But a long sword+1 is balanced with a flail+1, and a flail+1 isn't balanced agains the flail+1+ acid damage or things like that, if you can find it , then you will use it.
When wil we use that, for instance if U see a certain player in a valk, then you know that you will need another special ship to counter it, or you will need to have a lot off skill and tactical knowledge to be able to beat him with your normal weapon.
I would prefer that the special weapons should be attainable more difficult and all, after certain mission and ... , But like you know, this is a test and is therefore not a balanced game, it's just to let people see what will come and what will be able the longer you play, hte more you advance in a certain guild, and the more you ...
And stop with throwing things, in my opinion rockets are already junk in comparison to energy weapons, you could use them like weapons to give you an extra punch, but I would never use them as a certain amount weapons, 16 shots is not much you know, with energy weapons you have an unlimited amount. They should just make a second or 2 seconds interval between shooting the next batch of rockets. So you won't be able to spam them.
But like always, the devs have an idea, I didn;t even see them replying in here, so they will stick with their idea
cheers
if you watch at every RPG, then you try to go for the supa duppa 2 handed sword with dispell magic on every touch and a nice enchantment on top of it. If I'm sure youc already know, in an RPG you quest for the best items available, and you stand in awe when somebody has got it.
I'm pretty sure the devs know about this and will make the specials only accessible through missions that you have to complete and so on. Besides it's a special , it shouldn't be balanced against a normal weapon. Because in your thinking you would chose between level 1 weapons , level 2 weapons or lvl 3 weapons oh and the normal ones. But like you know, in every RPG once you got a lvl1 weapon, then you don't use the lvl0 weapon anymore, if you get the lvl 2 weapons, then you don't use the lvl1 weapons anymore except maybe in some matters, where you need a specific weapon to be able to obliterate a certain adversarie "for instance duel , mission, ..."
Like you know in an RPG, a flail is balanced with a long sword, but a flail isn't balanced to a long sword+1, if you are able to take it, then you prefer the long sword+1. But a long sword+1 is balanced with a flail+1, and a flail+1 isn't balanced agains the flail+1+ acid damage or things like that, if you can find it , then you will use it.
When wil we use that, for instance if U see a certain player in a valk, then you know that you will need another special ship to counter it, or you will need to have a lot off skill and tactical knowledge to be able to beat him with your normal weapon.
I would prefer that the special weapons should be attainable more difficult and all, after certain mission and ... , But like you know, this is a test and is therefore not a balanced game, it's just to let people see what will come and what will be able the longer you play, hte more you advance in a certain guild, and the more you ...
And stop with throwing things, in my opinion rockets are already junk in comparison to energy weapons, you could use them like weapons to give you an extra punch, but I would never use them as a certain amount weapons, 16 shots is not much you know, with energy weapons you have an unlimited amount. They should just make a second or 2 seconds interval between shooting the next batch of rockets. So you won't be able to spam them.
But like always, the devs have an idea, I didn;t even see them replying in here, so they will stick with their idea
cheers
During the huge battle between Gold and Blue yesterday, several Valkyries used this tactic against my Warthog... it was never really devastating. As they rushed in, my gatling gun did quite a bit of damage. They issued on their own rockets three or four times. I was left with about 60% life. My only regret was that I didn't get a PK when they did this. :)
Asp
Asp
Yeah, I've managed to a get a Valk to issue on my Warthog also... but only after I died. I still think it's annoying because of how it encourages suicide tactics. And I still think there should be a disadvantage to firing triple rockets versus one rocket. They both have ammo limitations, so I wouldn't really consider that a disadvantage. But anyway, after switching to my quad tachyon Hornet config, those Valk pilots seemed to be getting owned a lot. 10,000 hull points is a b***h, ain't it! Stupid Valk jockeys! Muwhaha!