Forums » Suggestions
Making Aggression Count
Backrolling/backstrafing is a valid tactic. Problem is : it is such an effective *defensive* tactic that fights become an exercise in patience. Some people like it, but I bet most people don't.
So, without changing the flight mechanics, how do we reward *aggression*?
The way to do it is to
(a) Make weapon damage inversely proportional to distance. I.e. if you hit something up close, you do more damage.
(b) Make weapon damage proportional to your forward *motion*. I.e. if you are moving forward, then you do more damage.
This way you reward people who are *chasing*, and being the aggressor.
IN fact you can classify "aggressive weapons" by giving them this extra feature....N3s for example. The AGT on the other hand, can be classified as "defensive" weapons and do not possess this feature.
(Please, if you disagree that "backrolling/backstrafing" is boring, I hear your point and disagree, so let's not get into that argument in this thread shall we?)
So, without changing the flight mechanics, how do we reward *aggression*?
The way to do it is to
(a) Make weapon damage inversely proportional to distance. I.e. if you hit something up close, you do more damage.
(b) Make weapon damage proportional to your forward *motion*. I.e. if you are moving forward, then you do more damage.
This way you reward people who are *chasing*, and being the aggressor.
IN fact you can classify "aggressive weapons" by giving them this extra feature....N3s for example. The AGT on the other hand, can be classified as "defensive" weapons and do not possess this feature.
(Please, if you disagree that "backrolling/backstrafing" is boring, I hear your point and disagree, so let's not get into that argument in this thread shall we?)
Please NO. Aggressive tactics have been mostly stupid and overconfident more than anything else for the entirety of military history. Yes, there are times when you must make a brief aggressive movement at great risk for great gain, but mostly it is the more conservative opponent who wins.
I vote to leave the basic combat mechanics of this game alone.
I vote to leave the basic combat mechanics of this game alone.
Aggression is rewarded by "greater" accuracy.
The more aggressive one, (if not overly aggressive) is the fighter in control of the fight.
This is only the case when you have better skill at narrowing the gap.
Problem with backrolling is that it is rather ineffective at keeping your distance since much of your thrust is spent on sideways motion and not *all* backwards motion.
The aggressor can keep his ship moving in a straight line and has turbo.
Backrolling is easy to counter.
If you can't catch up (lets say they're in a vulturious) then get a vulturious :)
The more aggressive one, (if not overly aggressive) is the fighter in control of the fight.
This is only the case when you have better skill at narrowing the gap.
Problem with backrolling is that it is rather ineffective at keeping your distance since much of your thrust is spent on sideways motion and not *all* backwards motion.
The aggressor can keep his ship moving in a straight line and has turbo.
Backrolling is easy to counter.
If you can't catch up (lets say they're in a vulturious) then get a vulturious :)
This plays into my suggestions for more variety in weapons. Some should be more effective depending on distance or speed, some not.
Missiles, for example, shouldn't matter how far away you are in determining how much damage they cause. Ignoring fuel for guided missiles and assuming for argument that they have unlimited range, the only thing that should determing damage cause is the size of the warhead and how close to the target it is when it explodes.
Energy weapons are different. Their damage should (other than accuracy) be determined only by distance. Beam weapons spread out over distance, diminishing their intensity. Weapons that shoot bolts of superheated plasma should also lose power over distance since the plasma will cool as it travels.
Kinetic energy weapons act differently in space from how they would in an atmosphere, in that there is virtually no friction to slow them down. Therefore, (again, discouting accuracy considerations) the only factor in determining damage is relative velocity. See the end of this post: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/14626?page=3#184681
Also, for clarity, when I say the only factor determining damage is whatever, I mean that's the only factor to MODIFY what damage the weapon does under ideal conditions.
Missiles, for example, shouldn't matter how far away you are in determining how much damage they cause. Ignoring fuel for guided missiles and assuming for argument that they have unlimited range, the only thing that should determing damage cause is the size of the warhead and how close to the target it is when it explodes.
Energy weapons are different. Their damage should (other than accuracy) be determined only by distance. Beam weapons spread out over distance, diminishing their intensity. Weapons that shoot bolts of superheated plasma should also lose power over distance since the plasma will cool as it travels.
Kinetic energy weapons act differently in space from how they would in an atmosphere, in that there is virtually no friction to slow them down. Therefore, (again, discouting accuracy considerations) the only factor in determining damage is relative velocity. See the end of this post: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/14626?page=3#184681
Also, for clarity, when I say the only factor determining damage is whatever, I mean that's the only factor to MODIFY what damage the weapon does under ideal conditions.
With a reasonable lens, (which I think we can assume these beam weapons would have) energy beams wouldn't spread significantly for many kilometers...
That's just the kind of variety I'm talking about, and works perfectly with a crafting system. You can buy a standard beam weapon, and maybe later upgrade it with a better, more expensive lens, which increases the weapon's effective range (but not it's total power). I think we can already shine a laser on the moon and only cover an area of a couple square kilometers.
Um... also note that there are no beam weapons currently in-game...
Yeah, but I want beam weapons. It would add another dimension of variability in weapons. Damage would depend on accuracy, power of the beam, focus (range) of the beam, and how long the beam is in contact with its target. This would only work realistically if ships could overheat, since that is what a laser would do to a ship; overheat it and melt a hole in the hull.
LC, I don't see how your first comment goes with your opinion. If being conservative is so successful, shouldn't being aggresive get a bit of a boost to make it balanced?
Currently, the only way to beat a skilled backroller is either to resort to the same tactics, or typekill them.
I suggested a while ago that strafing backwards consume a bit of energy, but that was shot down by the backrollers accusing me of just being sore from losing.
On this topic, I would rather have a defensive pilot's weapon weakened rather than a beefed up attacker. The main problem is that it's nearly impossible to hit them, but if they have weak weapons, you can afford to turbo in close.
Currently, the only way to beat a skilled backroller is either to resort to the same tactics, or typekill them.
I suggested a while ago that strafing backwards consume a bit of energy, but that was shot down by the backrollers accusing me of just being sore from losing.
On this topic, I would rather have a defensive pilot's weapon weakened rather than a beefed up attacker. The main problem is that it's nearly impossible to hit them, but if they have weak weapons, you can afford to turbo in close.
There were beam weapions. Blue lazers.
Anyway, right now missles are totaly nerfed. They need a damage increse since, you can't carrying many of them, and they go slow enough that backrollers can easily dodge them.
Anyway, I think you should go a third of your speed when backing up. With faster ships, half. It only evens things out, right now, backrolling is annoying as hell.
Anyway, right now missles are totaly nerfed. They need a damage increse since, you can't carrying many of them, and they go slow enough that backrollers can easily dodge them.
Anyway, I think you should go a third of your speed when backing up. With faster ships, half. It only evens things out, right now, backrolling is annoying as hell.
backrolling is another way of saying "I want to run away, but if I do it straight and/or quickly, you'll gank me in the back, so I'll corkscrew backwards slowly"
..backrolling is not a combat tactic, it's a combat AVOIDANCE tactic, popular because of the lynch mob of aggro PVPers who convinced them to make evading combat so difficult
(/me does not backroll)
</rant off>
:D
..backrolling is not a combat tactic, it's a combat AVOIDANCE tactic, popular because of the lynch mob of aggro PVPers who convinced them to make evading combat so difficult
(/me does not backroll)
</rant off>
:D
The answer, fooz, is Shape's armor reducing suggestion.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/14626
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/14626
No fooz, because I like things being unbalanced and I like reckless bravado being punished. I am afraid that your complaint about needing to resort to backrolling as a necessary tactic (which, btw, I think is untrue) feels like hearing from a newbie chess player that they HATE castling or hearing an organic farmer complain about how much more produce per acre a GM food farmer can grow; if a tactic is so successful that one must adopt it or lose, that doesn't make it bad or evil, it makes it THE BEST. And, about that backrolling, talk to (or fight) KixKizzle or a couple other experienced PvPers and they can shortly tell you (or show you) how ignorant a backrolling-only strategy is.
If one insists on chasing a backroller, one has little right to complain about engaging them. Also, USE TURBO if you need to close the distance...
Oh, and making ships non-turbo movement different backwards from forwards would KILL distance management and turn the game into X-Wing with different ships, all without shields -- to keep enough distance to dodge, one would HAVE to zip past an enemy.
If one insists on chasing a backroller, one has little right to complain about engaging them. Also, USE TURBO if you need to close the distance...
Oh, and making ships non-turbo movement different backwards from forwards would KILL distance management and turn the game into X-Wing with different ships, all without shields -- to keep enough distance to dodge, one would HAVE to zip past an enemy.