Forums » Suggestions
Wow, the "Be Nice" policy has gotten a lot more lenient recently.
I guess I'll address ladron specifically- "retarded fantasy-game style honorifics" aren't what i'm suggesting. Because unlike Godly Plate of the Heavenly King Whale, a) you'd get an idea of the modifications from the prefix itself, and b) they can be justified within the science of the universe. What I'm saying is that so long as they make sense at a glance, they have a place in VO. And finally, it's a step towards crafting (assuming the infrastructure isn't already mostly in place. You never can tell ;P)
The other thing is that the weapon variations (mkII, mkIII etc) are basic improvements to the weapon. If a mkIII is available, you'd never take a stock variant. What I'm suggesting is diversity, and a way to personalize loadouts in an easy-to-implement (i think) and relatively interesting way. The special, faction-exclusive weapons would not be subject to all this, and I thought people might perhaps have guessed that, but clearly not.
The 4 modifications I gave there are just examples of what could easily be done. There could be any number more of these added in on the launch of the system, the suggestions of players, and the like.
PS- Hey tosh, cam.
I guess I'll address ladron specifically- "retarded fantasy-game style honorifics" aren't what i'm suggesting. Because unlike Godly Plate of the Heavenly King Whale, a) you'd get an idea of the modifications from the prefix itself, and b) they can be justified within the science of the universe. What I'm saying is that so long as they make sense at a glance, they have a place in VO. And finally, it's a step towards crafting (assuming the infrastructure isn't already mostly in place. You never can tell ;P)
The other thing is that the weapon variations (mkII, mkIII etc) are basic improvements to the weapon. If a mkIII is available, you'd never take a stock variant. What I'm suggesting is diversity, and a way to personalize loadouts in an easy-to-implement (i think) and relatively interesting way. The special, faction-exclusive weapons would not be subject to all this, and I thought people might perhaps have guessed that, but clearly not.
The 4 modifications I gave there are just examples of what could easily be done. There could be any number more of these added in on the launch of the system, the suggestions of players, and the like.
PS- Hey tosh, cam.
wtf uncledave
If a mkIII is available, you'd never take a stock variant
That's really not true at all. Generally MkII and MkIII variants are better than MkI ones, but all versions above MkI are generally balanced against each other. For example, even though Warthogs go up to Mk IV, most people who fly hogs fly the Mk II variants because it's more energy-efficient at the cost of armor. A lot of people prefer Neutron Blasters Mk II to the Mk III variant, again because of energy efficiency. The Gauss Mk II and Mk III are very different weapons, with the Mk II variant delivering medium damage with a huge auto-aim arc and higher energy efficiency, which the Mk III shoots a huge honking ball of plasma that uses half your battery straight forward and really fast.
Weapons, unlike magical fantasy items, must be engineered to work at all. You can't take a Neutron blaster, swap a couple random wires, and get a functional weapon with modified stats. You just get a broken Neutron blaster. I'm certainly in favor of more weapon variation, but I'm opposed to your proposed "magical fairy dust" implementation of it.
If it's simply the fact that the current names are unclear that bugs you, we could rename weapons currently in the game. For example, the Neutrons Mk II and Mk III could become "High-efficiency Neutron Blaster" and "High-damage Neutron Blaster" respectively. Personally I think that's silly, as real guns generally have much more cryptic names than the ones in Vendetta.
That's really not true at all. Generally MkII and MkIII variants are better than MkI ones, but all versions above MkI are generally balanced against each other. For example, even though Warthogs go up to Mk IV, most people who fly hogs fly the Mk II variants because it's more energy-efficient at the cost of armor. A lot of people prefer Neutron Blasters Mk II to the Mk III variant, again because of energy efficiency. The Gauss Mk II and Mk III are very different weapons, with the Mk II variant delivering medium damage with a huge auto-aim arc and higher energy efficiency, which the Mk III shoots a huge honking ball of plasma that uses half your battery straight forward and really fast.
Weapons, unlike magical fantasy items, must be engineered to work at all. You can't take a Neutron blaster, swap a couple random wires, and get a functional weapon with modified stats. You just get a broken Neutron blaster. I'm certainly in favor of more weapon variation, but I'm opposed to your proposed "magical fairy dust" implementation of it.
If it's simply the fact that the current names are unclear that bugs you, we could rename weapons currently in the game. For example, the Neutrons Mk II and Mk III could become "High-efficiency Neutron Blaster" and "High-damage Neutron Blaster" respectively. Personally I think that's silly, as real guns generally have much more cryptic names than the ones in Vendetta.
That's really not true at all. Generally MkII and MkIII variants are better than MkI ones, but all versions above MkI are generally balanced against each other. For example, even though Warthogs go up to Mk IV, most people who fly hogs fly the Mk II variants because it's more energy-efficient at the cost of armor.
Yes... take pretty much the one example of the lower mk variant being used over the higher mk variants in the entire goddamn game to "disprove" a point that anyone with a brain would agree with as a general principal (if not as fact with a few exceptions).
Regarding Gauss... the only reason the MKIII exists is that it was suggested a year ago; it was not a stock weapon in the game. The vast majority of all higher-number mark variants are vastly superior to their lower mark variant counterparts.
As for You can take a Neutron blaster, swap a couple random wires, and get a functional weapon with modified stats. You just get a broken Neutron blaster.... this game is based on fiction. Don't let the preceding "science" have too much effect on your senses. Maybe the technology exists to make such modifications. Since when has an argument against implementation of an idea been "we don't have the technology!"??? Of course we have the technology... we have whatever technology we say we have!
As for your last point regarding neutron blasters and current names... I was having a hard time figuring out which of your recent statements is the most lacking with regards to purpose and higher brain function... now I'm not.
And yes, Hi Dave :).
Yes... take pretty much the one example of the lower mk variant being used over the higher mk variants in the entire goddamn game to "disprove" a point that anyone with a brain would agree with as a general principal (if not as fact with a few exceptions).
Regarding Gauss... the only reason the MKIII exists is that it was suggested a year ago; it was not a stock weapon in the game. The vast majority of all higher-number mark variants are vastly superior to their lower mark variant counterparts.
As for You can take a Neutron blaster, swap a couple random wires, and get a functional weapon with modified stats. You just get a broken Neutron blaster.... this game is based on fiction. Don't let the preceding "science" have too much effect on your senses. Maybe the technology exists to make such modifications. Since when has an argument against implementation of an idea been "we don't have the technology!"??? Of course we have the technology... we have whatever technology we say we have!
As for your last point regarding neutron blasters and current names... I was having a hard time figuring out which of your recent statements is the most lacking with regards to purpose and higher brain function... now I'm not.
And yes, Hi Dave :).
To me, it sounds like a win-win. I don't get where the issue is here.
The issue is that this is of course a great idea that has been suggested only about 5 billion times before over the past 5 years alone. The Devs are too busy, too cautious, or too [insert pejorative here] to actually put it in.
pretty much the one example of the lower mk variant being used over the higher mk variants in the entire goddamn game to
Atice, before getting snotty you should be sure of your own footing: the ADV rail, while nasty, only packs 10 shots; many people use Mk II or III for greater ammo capacity. The same is true of sun/star flares. You entirely ignored the Neut II/III distinction, with most people preferring the II to the III--even the lenb, which is harder to even get in any sort of quantity, is not always preferred to the N2. I could go on, but maybe you finally got the point.
The issue is that this is of course a great idea that has been suggested only about 5 billion times before over the past 5 years alone. The Devs are too busy, too cautious, or too [insert pejorative here] to actually put it in.
pretty much the one example of the lower mk variant being used over the higher mk variants in the entire goddamn game to
Atice, before getting snotty you should be sure of your own footing: the ADV rail, while nasty, only packs 10 shots; many people use Mk II or III for greater ammo capacity. The same is true of sun/star flares. You entirely ignored the Neut II/III distinction, with most people preferring the II to the III--even the lenb, which is harder to even get in any sort of quantity, is not always preferred to the N2. I could go on, but maybe you finally got the point.
As for dev time, sure, whatever. I'll let the devs decide how much dev time is required for something like this.
My point still stands, though: as a general principal, higher mk variants obsolete lower mk variants. I believe I can count on one hand the number of weps/ships where this is not the case (star/sunflares do not count, as they are not mk variants). Sure, 'one' was an exaggeration (which, to be fair, was qualified by a 'pretty much'), but let's get real here.
My point still stands, though: as a general principal, higher mk variants obsolete lower mk variants. I believe I can count on one hand the number of weps/ships where this is not the case (star/sunflares do not count, as they are not mk variants). Sure, 'one' was an exaggeration (which, to be fair, was qualified by a 'pretty much'), but let's get real here.
Okay, if you insist, let's make a list of ships and weapons in which the Mk I or Mk II versions are used as commonly or more commonly than the higher Mk versions.
Ships:
Warthog (for efficiency)
Hornet (for efficiency)
Ragnarok (primarily due to the high price of the Mk III)
Revenant (for cargo)
Prometheus (Mk II has cargo capacity, Mk III is just a watered-down skyprom)
Weapons:
Rails
Neutron blasters
Gauss cannon
Note that this is about half of the ships and weapons which even have Mk variants, and I probably missed a few. Now can you please get over yourself and move on with the conversation?
Ships:
Warthog (for efficiency)
Hornet (for efficiency)
Ragnarok (primarily due to the high price of the Mk III)
Revenant (for cargo)
Prometheus (Mk II has cargo capacity, Mk III is just a watered-down skyprom)
Weapons:
Rails
Neutron blasters
Gauss cannon
Note that this is about half of the ships and weapons which even have Mk variants, and I probably missed a few. Now can you please get over yourself and move on with the conversation?
Required dev time shouldn't be too bad, I hope. I may very well be wrong about this.
I agree with you (ladron) insofar as weapon variants are concerned. Lower numerals are oft-used, at times due to availability, at times due to higher efficiency or applicability for the task at hand, as has been pointed out so diplomatically by Lecter and you.
Where I do not agree with you is that this would be "magical fairy dust". On the contrary, a skilled mechanic/engineer working at one backwater station with enough time on her or his hands might be able to achieve one of the characteristics Dave proposed in this thread's first post. Not all of them, and supply, in quantity as well as temporally, could be limited.
And another thing (as was already pointed out by Dave), this would provide a money-sink. It would perhaps even make people fly around grey space more, because it would make sense to keep the probability of encountering such 'tinkered-upon' items higher in areas where less strict regulations apply.
I agree with you (ladron) insofar as weapon variants are concerned. Lower numerals are oft-used, at times due to availability, at times due to higher efficiency or applicability for the task at hand, as has been pointed out so diplomatically by Lecter and you.
Where I do not agree with you is that this would be "magical fairy dust". On the contrary, a skilled mechanic/engineer working at one backwater station with enough time on her or his hands might be able to achieve one of the characteristics Dave proposed in this thread's first post. Not all of them, and supply, in quantity as well as temporally, could be limited.
And another thing (as was already pointed out by Dave), this would provide a money-sink. It would perhaps even make people fly around grey space more, because it would make sense to keep the probability of encountering such 'tinkered-upon' items higher in areas where less strict regulations apply.
oy. if only the ships you listed had lower variants used with regards to combat... then I'd be interested. and I am getting on with the conversation; you seem the one interested in ending it.
the reason I don't like this, at least the way it is being implimented is because one, it has no regards to the "balance" of the game which people seam to scream about in every other thread. Two it rewards people for farming bots all day long trying to get EPIC L00TZ which I don't think the devs are very interested in. So i don't think this is the best way to go about it.
Dave thinks they're self-balancing: no buffing one characteristic of a weapon without nerfing another one. Velocity up equals energy consumption up and refire rate down, for example.
The problem, however, is determining a ratio between these variables that would actually preserve balance. Velocity, mass, energy consumption, refire rate, and damage are all pretty much incommensurable and I haven't seen anyone suggest a way of determining how much of one you should have to nerf in order to get a buff of X to any other.
The problem, however, is determining a ratio between these variables that would actually preserve balance. Velocity, mass, energy consumption, refire rate, and damage are all pretty much incommensurable and I haven't seen anyone suggest a way of determining how much of one you should have to nerf in order to get a buff of X to any other.
I think Shape was actually working on some algorithms to come up with some sort of "on-the-fly" balancing function. I also think he ran out of steam when faced with the daunting scope of the task. Either that or his girlfriend decided he had better things to be doing with his time.
honestly, if they were to be semi-randomly generated, I think that 'balance' doesn't have to be that big of an issue.
as long as there's a couple of hard-coded limits.
for example, it may have anywhere from +150 to velocity while losing a maximum of whatever efficiency.
and let the computers random up the rest.
as long as there's a couple of hard-coded limits.
for example, it may have anywhere from +150 to velocity while losing a maximum of whatever efficiency.
and let the computers random up the rest.
Balance isn't an issue if they're rare enough. That doesn't mean they should be "better".
Balance isn't an issue if they're rare enough
I think that's entirely backwards.
I think that's entirely backwards.
"..Two it rewards people for farming bots all day long trying to get EPIC L00TZ which I don't think the devs are very interested in. So i don't think this is the best way to go about it.."
Yah, Peytros is not far off my own reticence about this. It does encourage something I've encountered before. The simplicity of purchasable weapons has actually bred alot of in game 'setup' tinkering already, which I think is a great read in the tips topics. Much like what Ladron suggested, I use a MK II Neut and a MegaPosi gift, to go hunt Bots in my MKII Warthog. I can merrily blast away with one then finish off with the bigger gun, and still Boost out of harm. It's a sound, simple setup that I was recommended. (used a MkII Gauss prior to the gift)
However, I recently obtained a Law Neutron Blaster after being nearby when an NPC collected an asteroid. Mana from heaven, it's a spirited little pop gun. So I have to say, a random 'Drop' is nice all the same.
I certainly like the expansion of the armoury, even the idea of exotic items. But for example, when we're still using .50 Cal machine guns through most of the 20th century and now.. sometimes, a weapon proves it's worth despite nastier options being around in modern times and people rightly stick with it.
Argh, ..the creative in me likes any suggestion of new goodies.. surely busying yourself with faction to get some of the more left of field Corporate weapons is task enough at this point?
- Taele :)
Yah, Peytros is not far off my own reticence about this. It does encourage something I've encountered before. The simplicity of purchasable weapons has actually bred alot of in game 'setup' tinkering already, which I think is a great read in the tips topics. Much like what Ladron suggested, I use a MK II Neut and a MegaPosi gift, to go hunt Bots in my MKII Warthog. I can merrily blast away with one then finish off with the bigger gun, and still Boost out of harm. It's a sound, simple setup that I was recommended. (used a MkII Gauss prior to the gift)
However, I recently obtained a Law Neutron Blaster after being nearby when an NPC collected an asteroid. Mana from heaven, it's a spirited little pop gun. So I have to say, a random 'Drop' is nice all the same.
I certainly like the expansion of the armoury, even the idea of exotic items. But for example, when we're still using .50 Cal machine guns through most of the 20th century and now.. sometimes, a weapon proves it's worth despite nastier options being around in modern times and people rightly stick with it.
Argh, ..the creative in me likes any suggestion of new goodies.. surely busying yourself with faction to get some of the more left of field Corporate weapons is task enough at this point?
- Taele :)