Forums » Suggestions

Tweaking the New Stuff

12»
Oct 20, 2009 Dr. Lecter link
Devs, you've added quite a lot of new stuff to the game over the past several months, and now that we've had a chance to play with it as implemented, I've got the following suggestions.

(1) Repair costs should be halved: Currently, I think initial buy prices are set pretty well. A Greyspace moth is about 65k, a Hound is at 100k, and SVGs, IBGs, CVs, RevCs, Valks and Proms cost significant coin. The heavy miner and the XC should probably be more expensive than they are: I'd say 150k rather than 90k for the miner, and 250k rather than 150k for the XC, but whatever... I only suggest the price rise for them because they're capable of generating such large amounts of profit in such short times (I should know, having extracted and hauled to good sale points a couple thousand CUs of Heliocene in just several hours). Capital heavy equipment like that seems like it should be a more expensive investment.

However, there's currently very little incentive to preserve a wounded ship because repair costs are as bad as replacement costs. In the context of piracy, it makes turning a profit much more difficult in a universe populated by Moth Heavys with automated gat turrets, especially in that fancy new pirate ship, the Hound. Try pirating a convoy moth sometime and see how your Hound repair costs stack up against the profits from the loot. There's plenty of arguments here ("That's what you get for using the fancy ships, just fly a Hog II!"), but I think repair costs are set too high even though initial costs are about right.

Same goes for the fancy trade ships. Recently, I repaired my UIT standing and I've made quite a bit of money by doing the following: fly around Dau in my Mega Posi + storm extender + UC Greyhound, and jump UIT pilots flying Heavy Miners or XCs (who are often POS with UIT) in their own monitored/guarded space. I can't kill them, of course, unless I want to lose faction -- but I can blast them down to 3% hull if they don't pay me 75-100k, and there's no penalty for me doing that. When I do that, they suddenly have to pay ~150k in repair costs for their XC. Being able to extort people based off repair costs tells me it's set too high. I propose a 50% across the board, proportional reduction, period.

(2) Greyhound Wants an Armor Buff: When I proposed the Hound, I kept the armor low because it wasn't made to engage in stand-up fights. However, having used it for pirating convoy moths quite a bit now, I think it's set too low to be effective. It needs a little more staying power to hang in there and deliver the mega posis. Currently the armor is set at 8250 (almost 1000 points less than the weakest 'hog), and I think the armor should go up to 9,500. If it's suddenly overpowered and being used as a combat rig, I think you'll hear about it in short order -- but I don't see that happening.

(3) Laws of Supply and Demand: I hauled an XC of 200 Gauss cannon Mk III into Sedina D-14 the other day. Gauss Mk II costs some 8,000 credits at D-14 and the nearest Gauss Mk III station is quite far away (I bought mine at ~6,000 credits per cannon). The current sale price at D-14 for a Gauss Mk III is... 10 credits. No, I didn't forget a "k" there: ten whole credits. I don't know how this happened, but it's just plain broken.

This is obviously pirate equipment focused, so others should feel free to post other suggested tweaks here, too.
Oct 20, 2009 Aticephyr link
(1) I like the idea and the motivation. Such incentive to keep a wounded ship will encourage players to turn and run from fights. Whether this is a good thing or bad thing is a discussion in its own right.

(2) I disagree. I have nearly taken out fully armed pirates in a Greyhound armed with flares while drunk. A) I suck with flares, so this should not be particularly possible to begin with, and B) I'm fighting full combat units, and doing a good job of it, another thing which technically shouldn't be possible in a Greyhound, and C) I was drunk! This ship does not need more armor to do its job. Lower repair costs would help the Greyhound, though, I'll give you that.

(3) I believe this fix is already in the pipeline.
Oct 20, 2009 Dr. Lecter link
Any credibility your (2) argument might have had was negated as soon as you said "armed with flares" -- nothing you did in a sun/jack Hound had anything to do with the Hound.

Like I said, I've been playing with these for a while and they dissolve too quickly from even a few turret hits. They shouldn't be too strong, but my opinion is that their current armor setting is too low for their intended use, period. Feel free to try pirating a convoy in one, rather than spamming flares and "almost" winning in one, and see if you still disagree.
Oct 20, 2009 Aticephyr link
sun/jack combo is a pretty effective pirate rig, not to mention a perfectly reasonable pvp rig. In addition, use of the Hound forces an opponent to turn and engage, as running means certain doom.

Moreover, I have taken out corvus convoys in an all-energy greyhound (though I prefer rail-megaposi as an anti-convoy setup); I'll agree it's a rough flight, but upping its armor will make it too effective in PvP (the point I was trying to make earlier), as well as a more-effective griefing ship. I think the solution here is to A) dodge the turrets better, and B) work in a group. A convoy's defenses are there so that it is difficult to take out: it should not be trivial to solo a convoy.

[edit] goddamn midterm week. apostrophe fixed.
Oct 20, 2009 Dr. Lecter link
Its armor is currently too low, as a lot of trial and error has shown. Can I use it to kill an entire convoy, given enough space to run them down over? Sure. But by and large, it needs an armor buff -- particularly in light of the new Terradons in many convoys. Will 9500 be too much? Probably not, but another period of trial and error won't hurt anything to find out: you're not going to see Hounds replace Valks, or even CVs/RevCs, as the favored PvP machines. The major combat limitation on the Hound comes from its lack of spin torque, which is equal to a free bus, rather than its armor. Mainly, though, the Warthog set up just isn't that great for combat: if 9500, infinboost, and shitty spin torque were going to create a perfect storm of PvP awesomeness, you'd constantly see people griefing in Hog IIs. You don't.

And like I said, you didn't even win in one: you spammed flares, damaged an opponent because they were overly aggressive despite the flares, but you still got fucking owned. What more do you want it to do, never be able to damage someone no matter how much they suck at dodging flare spam?
Oct 20, 2009 Aticephyr link
First off, Terradons are a passing thing (will be replaced again by Tridents in the near future)... so let's not use them as a primary example. Secondly, 9500 puts the Greyhound more on-par with the wartII, which I dislike. Granted, it still has piss-poor torque.

You are using the inability to solo a convoy as a reason to boost the armor. I'm missing why you think it is reasonable to solo a convoy, and therefore why the hound should be capable of such a thing. Additionally, I would propose that the Hound isn't the ideal convoy chaser anyways: convoys tend to move slowly enough that it makes more sense to use another infiniboost ship with more firepower.

My understanding is that the Hound is intended to assist pirating players. I do not feel that it falls short on that account.
Oct 20, 2009 Dr. Lecter link
I don't think soloing an entire convoy is the issue: even dropping a single moth heavy, when it's in a convoy full of auto-firing turrets, can be too difficult given the current armor rating, and that's not factoring in the Terradon fire or the escort fire. Thankfully, escorts currently do a terrible job of staying with/defending their trade ships, usually running several sectors ahead of them -- otherwise, we'd all be dying to flare/gat hogs rather than pirating anything. Can I take out one or two moth heavies pretty consistently anyway? Yes; but I've been doing this for more time than I care to admit, and balancing a ship to only be effective when used by the most highly skilled players is piss poor thinking.

Beyond the fact that I'm not saying 'armor is too low because look, it can't solo a whole fucking convoy!', whether soloing a convoy is reasonable really depends upon how long you have to chase it. Given enough time, say 4 or 5 WHs without the benefit of storms, I can kill all the escorts (Terradon excluded) and wear all the trade ships down to 3-6% armor, finally killing them all off in their destination sector and selling their cargo there. Soloing a convoy over a shorter span would be unreasonable, and that's not what I'm suggesting be made possible.

Finally, I couldn't care less about your feelings regarding it being "more on-par with the wartII" since you didn't bother to explain why that's necessarily bad. The Greyhound was inspired by the facts that (1) the Hog Mk II was (IMO) the best energy pirate ship in the game, and (2) Corvus should have something better that wasn't quite as useful for heads-up combat but was a better pirate ship. To that end, I nerfed its spin torque so that it wouldn't handle heavy weapons as well, and suggested an armor nerf that I thought would make it less useful in combat without rendering it unable to pursue a target with mines/turrets. But it's not like I was taking an X-1 as the base: the Hog Mk II, as much as I love it, isn't a great combat rig to start with. Thus, buffing the armor a bit more isn't a big fracking deal. The spin torque still sucks, it still takes major levels and Corvus faction to buy, it is still only sold in Odia, one of the most backwater systems in the game, and it still costs 100,000 credits just for the hull. And just in case I wasn't clear the first time around: IT STILL HAS THE SPIN TORQUE OF A FREE BUS.

I fail to see how the balance risks inherent in trying this can possibly outweigh the potential benefit of a better rounded ship, particularly when most pirates turn their noses up* at what is supposed to be the greatest pirate interceptor in the game.

*The reasons I hear most often are related to repair costs and lack of sufficient armor to engage convoys (these two obviously being linked, too, since cost is a function of % damage, not total points of damage), the most prevalant target for pirates in VO, and I understand entirely.
Oct 20, 2009 ladron link
I never use Greyhounds for pirating, for the reasons cited by Lecter. It's just rather silly.

A ship that can only go 55 m/s non-turbo will never be particularly effective in a dogfight. Every other ship in the game is to the hound what the corvult is to most fighters.

Bumping the armor to 9500 won't break anything, and honestly I think it's a pretty good idea.
Oct 20, 2009 CrazySpence link
Piracy needs to be improved anyways, too boring going through gray space unbothered
Oct 21, 2009 pirren link
Dr.Lector, do you know about repair module?

http://www.vo-wiki.com/wiki/Equipment#Repair_Module
http://www.google.ru/search?hl=ru&source=hp&q=repair+module+vendetta+online

If u will tell me that ur gonna take me down to 3% i will laugh loudly and ask any of nearest friends to repair me :) And after that you will be victim of nice and fun hunt.

Maybe u pay money for repairs on stations even after duels on high-cost ships?
Oct 21, 2009 Dr. Lecter link
And after that you will be victim of nice and fun hunt.


Nooblets are so cute.

But seriously, if there's actually someone around with a rep gun that you want to wait for, I'm just going to boom you, boom them, and repair the faction after (with the stock piles, it'll take about 5-7 minutes) if I wind up losing any at all. If there's an [EMS] in B8, they're great, but usually, getting the rep gun is a waste of time -- if you'd actually played for more than 8 hours, instead of mining the wiki for information you don't understand very well, maybe you'd know that.

Also, learn English before you foul the forums with another post. You don't see me coming onto whatever forum is relevant to your piss-pot of a nation and babbling in English-to-Pirren crap that was shat out by Bablefish, do you?
Oct 21, 2009 shlimazel link
Pirren, ignore lecter. He has a sad and miserable life, so he compensates by trolling internet web boards.
Oct 21, 2009 Dr. Lecter link
Yeah, there's absolutely no truth in my previous post at all. And you, shlim, know all about my life -- now that would make me sad and miserable :D

Anyway, there's got to be other new stuff that needs tweaking.
Oct 21, 2009 ladron link
Shlimazel, while I realize that having a 3-meter-long stick up your ass is rather uncomfortable, bitching about it in an otherwise mostly-productive thread isn't likely to solve the problem. A more appropriate response might be to seek medical attention, or to attempt self-surgery if you're too embarrassed to be seen with it in public.

Back on topic:

I have a feeling the asteroid occlusion is going to need tweaking, and there have been multiple threads to this effect. As it stands right now, though, I'm not entirely sure which parts of the occlusion behavior are intentional and which parts are bugs, so I'm not able to comment further on that matter.

The dynamic warfare in Deneb has been added (somewhat) recently, and it's currently a huge mess. Obviously it's a work in progress, but as it stands right now you can't even expect the capital ships to stay within visual range of the jump-in point, which immediately turns a Large Skirmish into a Fighter Skirmish where you have to kill thousands of enemy vultures and missile-spam rags to win the mission. It's broken and incredibly boring. Furthermore, there isn't even an incentive for pilots of either nation to participate, as the missions end up being a money sink, don't provide much combat experience, don't provide any collateral benefits other than temporarily flipping the color of a square of empty space, and aren't even fun to do.
Oct 21, 2009 CrazySpence link
I really enjoy the occlusion, my Mischievous levels are at a new time high.

As for Deneb warfare. The Itani and Serco used to be 2 very proud nations years ago that used to do things just to maintain the bragging rights over the other. In those times if this had been around every Itani and Serco would be claiming each sector and talking about how much better their nation was over the other.

The pride is lost and no one cares anymore for much more than just hoarding credits and hailing before shooting someone who is clearly the enemy.

Yes the cap ships need to be fixed but the nation war as a whole is fun and I still enjoy taking part when I fly through the area.

I would really like to see some economic factors that favour piracy put into place, Pirates are the most entertaining characters of the game at the moment and anything done to improve the Itani/Serco conflict will probably just be complained about anyways so focus should go elsewhere
Oct 21, 2009 smittens link
Good point about repair costs. When n00bs save up for their very first expensive ship, they shouldn't have to toss it as soon as it takes a few dings just cause they don't have enough money for the repair (or rebuy) costs, and it's not like it's really hurting on vets
Oct 21, 2009 peytros link
or they could follow this little tid bit of advice smittens. do not fly what you cannot afford to replace.
Oct 21, 2009 Dr. Lecter link
do not fly what you cannot afford to replace.

That's not the point, pey. I don't see anyone saying we should lower purchase costs; the issue is what's the most you should have to pay to repair a ship you've kept alive. It should be something (for a very long time repairs and reloads were entirely free), but not so much as it would cost to buy a new one.

The point here is that having a significant difference in repair vs. replacement cost allows for making death more meaningful by setting a higher replacement cost, while not setting repair costs so high that people are entirely risk adverse. If I know I'm paying 100,000 credits regardless of an outcome -- 100,000 for a new Hound, or 100,000 to repair a damaged Hound -- I'm avoiding the activity entirely. That's not exactly fun: either I won't fight, or I won't fight in that ship, neither of which should be encouraged. I definitly won't try and employ the ship in an activity that has a decent chance of giving me ~100,000 in repair costs without at least a slightly better chance of giving me ~100,000 in profit... and we all know how often there's pure crap inside players and NPCs, and how often a trade route doesn't pan out.

I don't think paying 75k to repair a barely-living XC, 45k to repair a nearly dead heavy miner, or 50k to repair a Hound that was about put down are insignificant hits, so a 50% cut from current rates should do it.
Oct 21, 2009 PaKettle link
And I thought you were a good pirate Lecter.... 1,000,000 is a minor hit to some of us.....

I agree with the idea you shouldnt fly a ship you cant easily afford. Not everyone should be running around in greyhounds or valks.
Oct 21, 2009 Dr. Lecter link
I paid 30,000,000 for the UIT standing recovery and didn't notice any real change in my bank balance, PaK. I'm shy of a billion credits, but not by that much.

The point is not about what I can afford to spend (quite a lot, even by the standards of those like Ecka), but about what we should have in the way of repair costs versus purchase costs, so as to encourage ship use and preservation. Make an argument one way or the other, post a different suggested tweak, or sod off.