Forums » Suggestions
Warp Out Killing
Running is too easy. We know this. A partial but simple fix would be to increase the warp-out vulnerability period to ten seconds -- the same as logout and self-destruct.
Yow, way too long.
Dear rotting zombie jesus with a zeal for political reform. That's way too long. Stop trying to chase people with energy weapons that work against the user by converting energy required for running people down into wasted damage potential.
It's not necessarily about piracy, SS...
OK. How about the warp-out aborts if you take damage? That way you don't have to spend 5 more seconds doing nothing.
sounds good to me
Give us back the old warp-out animation first.
Yes. The warp should abort if you take damage. Invulnerability shouldn't even need to be discussed.
Aborting warps... okay, then shorten warp time as well.
It's not necessarily about piracy, SS...
I didn't mention piracy at all, did I?
Aborting warp out on taking damage would be generally an annoyance. Do you give back the battery that the player lost when the warp was aborted, maybe at a rate reduced with the time the warp animation has been running? How do you intend to deal with players being disoriented by the quick change in camera views? This will need to be explained to new players.
I don't like it, personally. It gives every player the ability to trap any other player in a sector without any extra investment or disadvantage. If you don't want someone to leave a sector, all you need to do is constantly give them love taps with an ion blaster or so. One ion blaster will take a long while before it's a serious danger to a pilot, leaving certain ships helplessly stuck.
I'm not opposed to deployable devices that limit warping out or jumping out, as long as they're destroyable, expensive, and don't dodge as well as limit the warp out ability of the player who deploys them. However, giving any player the ability to halt another player's movement in and out of a sector without any kind of drawback is extremely unfun.
I didn't mention piracy at all, did I?
Aborting warp out on taking damage would be generally an annoyance. Do you give back the battery that the player lost when the warp was aborted, maybe at a rate reduced with the time the warp animation has been running? How do you intend to deal with players being disoriented by the quick change in camera views? This will need to be explained to new players.
I don't like it, personally. It gives every player the ability to trap any other player in a sector without any extra investment or disadvantage. If you don't want someone to leave a sector, all you need to do is constantly give them love taps with an ion blaster or so. One ion blaster will take a long while before it's a serious danger to a pilot, leaving certain ships helplessly stuck.
I'm not opposed to deployable devices that limit warping out or jumping out, as long as they're destroyable, expensive, and don't dodge as well as limit the warp out ability of the player who deploys them. However, giving any player the ability to halt another player's movement in and out of a sector without any kind of drawback is extremely unfun.
I don't know. Piracy is the only situation I could think of where your setup is dictated primarily by The Chase. Should energy users and battle drained pilots be at a disadvantage here?
I guess the point is to make disengagement more consensual. That's either appealing or it isn't. I think the mechanics can be worked out.
I guess the point is to make disengagement more consensual. That's either appealing or it isn't. I think the mechanics can be worked out.
Piracy and counter-piracy, Pointsman. I can't begin to tell you how much time I spend just trying to catch you and your comrades.
I always liked Escape Velocity's take on warping out...
First, come to a full stop, then two seconds of immobility as the jump drive 'powers up', then zoooom off into the distance.
/2c
First, come to a full stop, then two seconds of immobility as the jump drive 'powers up', then zoooom off into the distance.
/2c
Aramarth is exactly right. Yes, energy users and battle-drained pilots should be at a disadvantage, since they are obviously set up to destroy enemies in face to face combat rather than preventing enemies that want to live from leading fulfilling, perhaps dishonorable, lives.
Now, let me present a scenario which I see myself enjoying quite frequently if this mechanism of stopping warp when you get hit was put into play. As a note, I personally only use sunflare rockets in most combat situations, and as such my combat style is not suited to sitting around in Sedina B-8 and waving my ego around in a gigantic waste of resources.
Consider that I was chasing a ship, a behemoth, an atlas, a warthog, anything is fine. This ship wishes to escape from me, and so plots a course to another system and runs out there. Naturally, they reach a range where if I had energy weapons I would've have lost my prey in a warpout. But, rockets have a fairly decent chance of disrupting or destroying the target, so I line my ship up with care and launch a salvo or two.
Often, what happens is that I hit the enemy pilot while they are warping out. Enough to weaken them and continue my chase in the next sector, harrying them until their ship gives out. However, had I interrupted their warp because of the proposed mechanism, they would have lost the energy invested into opening that warp as well as their ship. Why? Often, unless it's a battle hardened pilot used to this specific situation, I imagine that the enemy pilot will be disoriented upon losing their warp field while the camera snaps back into their cockpit.
Considering that even if they were a battle hardened pilot, they would still have lost at least a quarter of their battery reserves, putting them at a distinct disadvantage while trying to open up a new warp. Do they risk a new warp, knowing full well more rocket salvos will come from behind, interrupting those warps? Or do they turn to fight, perhaps being poorly armed and low on battery? It's a situation that puts the person who is trying to protect themselves at a very marked disadvantage, if only because I choose to use weapons effective in running down other pilots, rather than fighting them in a prolonged battle face to face.
Considering if, maybe, there were only energy weapons I can see merit in your arguments, but since there also are weapons whose usage is in the narrow scope of chasing people, we also need to consider the effect of those weapons on combat situations with this mechanic. I feel it would be unfair to subject people to this sort of imbalance without at the very least removing rockets entirely. However, I am far from advocating the removal of rockets and an entire class of VO weaponry in order to make an unfair and frustrating mechanism work.
Now, let me present a scenario which I see myself enjoying quite frequently if this mechanism of stopping warp when you get hit was put into play. As a note, I personally only use sunflare rockets in most combat situations, and as such my combat style is not suited to sitting around in Sedina B-8 and waving my ego around in a gigantic waste of resources.
Consider that I was chasing a ship, a behemoth, an atlas, a warthog, anything is fine. This ship wishes to escape from me, and so plots a course to another system and runs out there. Naturally, they reach a range where if I had energy weapons I would've have lost my prey in a warpout. But, rockets have a fairly decent chance of disrupting or destroying the target, so I line my ship up with care and launch a salvo or two.
Often, what happens is that I hit the enemy pilot while they are warping out. Enough to weaken them and continue my chase in the next sector, harrying them until their ship gives out. However, had I interrupted their warp because of the proposed mechanism, they would have lost the energy invested into opening that warp as well as their ship. Why? Often, unless it's a battle hardened pilot used to this specific situation, I imagine that the enemy pilot will be disoriented upon losing their warp field while the camera snaps back into their cockpit.
Considering that even if they were a battle hardened pilot, they would still have lost at least a quarter of their battery reserves, putting them at a distinct disadvantage while trying to open up a new warp. Do they risk a new warp, knowing full well more rocket salvos will come from behind, interrupting those warps? Or do they turn to fight, perhaps being poorly armed and low on battery? It's a situation that puts the person who is trying to protect themselves at a very marked disadvantage, if only because I choose to use weapons effective in running down other pilots, rather than fighting them in a prolonged battle face to face.
Considering if, maybe, there were only energy weapons I can see merit in your arguments, but since there also are weapons whose usage is in the narrow scope of chasing people, we also need to consider the effect of those weapons on combat situations with this mechanic. I feel it would be unfair to subject people to this sort of imbalance without at the very least removing rockets entirely. However, I am far from advocating the removal of rockets and an entire class of VO weaponry in order to make an unfair and frustrating mechanism work.
I would actually dissent here from the majority. Warp should NOT abort if damage is taken.
If you look at the idea of "escape" under fire, then there's a time honored point that escape is always an option, or at least the attempt (you may die in the process).
To abort the warp mid-hop really doesn't make much sense from a game standpoint either, as it would be hard to justify the reason behind it. The weapons would not cause a short in the drive 100% of the time, neither would it pose a navigational hazard that would cause the computer to abort (since our drives appear to operate off of the gravitational fields from objects, you'd need 3000m from them to jump, but the gravitational effects of a missile, rocket or energy weapon would be negligible.)
I think that the current setup is fine. If you can't function under it, you need to change your tactics as has been mentioned. Instead of energy weapons that shorten your pursuit ability, carry projectile weapons and get that longer burn.
If you look at the idea of "escape" under fire, then there's a time honored point that escape is always an option, or at least the attempt (you may die in the process).
To abort the warp mid-hop really doesn't make much sense from a game standpoint either, as it would be hard to justify the reason behind it. The weapons would not cause a short in the drive 100% of the time, neither would it pose a navigational hazard that would cause the computer to abort (since our drives appear to operate off of the gravitational fields from objects, you'd need 3000m from them to jump, but the gravitational effects of a missile, rocket or energy weapon would be negligible.)
I think that the current setup is fine. If you can't function under it, you need to change your tactics as has been mentioned. Instead of energy weapons that shorten your pursuit ability, carry projectile weapons and get that longer burn.
Aramarth: Anti-piracy = piracy. Both involve non consensual combat and protecting widgets. They RP differently but there is no fundamental difference.
SS: My point of departure is that generally setups are balanced or at least balanced enough one-on-one. So discouraging fleeing isn't inherently problematic for anyone. The fact that it is currently possible to concoct chasing setups isn't relevant as I am proposing altering the dynamic of the game.
And I don't understand how your ship can be designed not for prolonged face to face battling and yet have an advantage when forcing your quarry to do just that. But I'm sure my preoccupation with scrimmaging people in B'8 has been deleterious to a complete understanding of pvp.
I wouldn't expect sudden POV changes to be confusing since I imagine most pilots would learn to expect this possibility.
Part of the issue is that for me at least by the time the next sector loads my target is already 2500m+ away. Far too far to catch. But this could be addressed by other means....
I like the idea of ships coming to a complete stop.
My goal to reiterate is to prevent all people from easily quitting their situation whatever that may be.
SS: My point of departure is that generally setups are balanced or at least balanced enough one-on-one. So discouraging fleeing isn't inherently problematic for anyone. The fact that it is currently possible to concoct chasing setups isn't relevant as I am proposing altering the dynamic of the game.
And I don't understand how your ship can be designed not for prolonged face to face battling and yet have an advantage when forcing your quarry to do just that. But I'm sure my preoccupation with scrimmaging people in B'8 has been deleterious to a complete understanding of pvp.
I wouldn't expect sudden POV changes to be confusing since I imagine most pilots would learn to expect this possibility.
Part of the issue is that for me at least by the time the next sector loads my target is already 2500m+ away. Far too far to catch. But this could be addressed by other means....
I like the idea of ships coming to a complete stop.
My goal to reiterate is to prevent all people from easily quitting their situation whatever that may be.
Anti-piracy = piracy. Both involve non consensual combat and protecting widgets. They RP differently but there is no fundamental difference.
Not really. Piracy involves running (from anti-pirates) and chasing (traders) as opposed to just chasing. Piracy also requires being able to haul cargo. Anti-piracy does not. Also, anti-pirates only typically attack other well-armed ships as opposed to pirates attacking often unarmed or poorly armed trade ships. Pretty fundamental differences, especially when you're talking about ships. I'm not sure where you were trying to go with that.
Not really. Piracy involves running (from anti-pirates) and chasing (traders) as opposed to just chasing. Piracy also requires being able to haul cargo. Anti-piracy does not. Also, anti-pirates only typically attack other well-armed ships as opposed to pirates attacking often unarmed or poorly armed trade ships. Pretty fundamental differences, especially when you're talking about ships. I'm not sure where you were trying to go with that.
I am opposed to having ships coming to a complete stop before jumping or aborting. Cause as a pirate(or anyone else) I would guess you know how dangerous and utterly impossible it would be for you to get to the smaller factions to get your goodies, like say AAPs. SF have a knack for landing shots during the jump animation, imagine standing completely still. That could be adjusted though. OH I KNOW! Lets change EVERYTHING to make the pirates happy! BAH!
The warping system doesn't need to change per se. I've already ranted in a different thread regarding granting interceptors a speed or accell advantage.
Leave as it is, it works well.