Forums » Suggestions
Perhaps. If they were capital ship exclusive i'd understand. But even then it already takes like twenty avalons to bring one down... and that's for a stationary target! So I'd still feel weary of ECM usage on capital ships. But maybe on something as crappy as the current Ragnarok, I can see why they'd be used.
If we're going to see faster and better tracking missiles, I would rather not see missiles where it's not possible to outrun 'em while boosting. There has to be some breaking point, perhaps 140m/s, where boosting will get you to safely get you away from a missile. Right now that breaking point is way too early in the boosting period, which is why most missiles right now are useless.
Anyway, I think I should restate three of my many previous proposals for these "new and improved" missiles, which may get you thinking about why ECMs may not be necessary after all:
1. The proximity detonator could be reduced so that they're impact-only weapons, since the missiles actually tend to hit their target more (no more 2% damage BS). The size of your ship will finally be a real factor in your safety, which may get more people to use the Centurion despite it's single S-port.
2. The ammunition of each missile pod should be GREATLY reduced. Because these missiles will be more powerful, quicker, and smarter, the need for ammo reduction is necessary to retain balance. I'd say no more than 4-6 missiles per pod. They should be used sparingly to cripple the target, (at least 50% damage per missile) not as the spamming tool that they are now.
3. Missiles can be dodged by their types. I had a list of missile types where you can easily scramble their tracking computers by the action you take for YOUR (the target) ship. For example you can come to a complete stop and shut down your engines to fake a heat-seeking missile out. You can turn your radar off (or drop cargo) for a radar-seeking missile to get it confused also. It's those little things that will require you to learn from experience, and therefore allow you to dodge missiles effectively without ECM usage.
PS: I also like the idea of being able to target warheads. An advanced gatling turret or two could probably blow a lot of missiles up prematurely, which may be the advantage for heavier ships.
PPS: If the devs are in fact planning ECMs, I'd like to request that they be L-port only. I can understand the argument why they'd be necessary for something as slow for the Ragnarok, but not something for fighters and smaller ships. Maybe a change like that will give the Warthog a new reputation as a stealth fighter.
If we're going to see faster and better tracking missiles, I would rather not see missiles where it's not possible to outrun 'em while boosting. There has to be some breaking point, perhaps 140m/s, where boosting will get you to safely get you away from a missile. Right now that breaking point is way too early in the boosting period, which is why most missiles right now are useless.
Anyway, I think I should restate three of my many previous proposals for these "new and improved" missiles, which may get you thinking about why ECMs may not be necessary after all:
1. The proximity detonator could be reduced so that they're impact-only weapons, since the missiles actually tend to hit their target more (no more 2% damage BS). The size of your ship will finally be a real factor in your safety, which may get more people to use the Centurion despite it's single S-port.
2. The ammunition of each missile pod should be GREATLY reduced. Because these missiles will be more powerful, quicker, and smarter, the need for ammo reduction is necessary to retain balance. I'd say no more than 4-6 missiles per pod. They should be used sparingly to cripple the target, (at least 50% damage per missile) not as the spamming tool that they are now.
3. Missiles can be dodged by their types. I had a list of missile types where you can easily scramble their tracking computers by the action you take for YOUR (the target) ship. For example you can come to a complete stop and shut down your engines to fake a heat-seeking missile out. You can turn your radar off (or drop cargo) for a radar-seeking missile to get it confused also. It's those little things that will require you to learn from experience, and therefore allow you to dodge missiles effectively without ECM usage.
PS: I also like the idea of being able to target warheads. An advanced gatling turret or two could probably blow a lot of missiles up prematurely, which may be the advantage for heavier ships.
PPS: If the devs are in fact planning ECMs, I'd like to request that they be L-port only. I can understand the argument why they'd be necessary for something as slow for the Ragnarok, but not something for fighters and smaller ships. Maybe a change like that will give the Warthog a new reputation as a stealth fighter.
so we're supposed to keep a watch on our target, watch the radar for missles (which we have pretty much no idea how close they are on the radar anyway, we can only tell by sound, and nukes and rockets make no sound), fire, dodge, aim, and pick the perfect time to turn our other gizmos on and off.
A bit much, i think.
A bit much, i think.
Here's the thing: it affects ALL rockets. Including your own... Since this gives it another drawback, it's not quite an uber-outfit... /me likes... :D
Urza: "A bit much, i think."
No more complicated than the average space flight sim, and certainly no more complicated than Star Fleet Command.
Pyro: It wasn't my intention to imply that it detonated your own rockets. It's 'smart' ECM. Even without blowing up your own or your allies rockets, its still got enough disadvantages to balance it IMO. Put too many more disadvantages on it, and you nerf it.
No more complicated than the average space flight sim, and certainly no more complicated than Star Fleet Command.
Pyro: It wasn't my intention to imply that it detonated your own rockets. It's 'smart' ECM. Even without blowing up your own or your allies rockets, its still got enough disadvantages to balance it IMO. Put too many more disadvantages on it, and you nerf it.
still, do you want a game people can just pick up, or a game that has a big learning curve?
Also, i just dont think it's right that a player should be forced to guestimate when the missle will be hit, then rely on guesswork for when to turn his gadget off. So in responce...
The APG missle detection unit: It detects the nearest enemy missle and tells you how close it is under your crosshairs
Also, i just dont think it's right that a player should be forced to guestimate when the missle will be hit, then rely on guesswork for when to turn his gadget off. So in responce...
The APG missle detection unit: It detects the nearest enemy missle and tells you how close it is under your crosshairs
hey, why dont we have an extra spot where it lists the 5 closest homers and display them in meters away from your ship, like mabye add it to the left thingy, and make it toggle-able
Humpy: not a bad idea. There's lots of info one readily needs that's not displayed on most game huds, IMHO. Fitting them all in would require a complete HUD redesign though, and they would need to get rid of the ugly unreadable font and change it to a font that remains readable even at smaller sizes.
Some of Celebrims ideas I like, some I don't. It's worth thinking about though. But Celebrim... Wouldn't all these countermeasures create more network traffic and server calculations? I thought those were precisely your arguments against rebalancing the rockets as proposed by SirCamps in the "the [sunflare/fighter/bomber] fix" thread... Besides, countermeasures require creating specific code for particular (new) objects: "equipment slots" and the various pieces of equipment that go in it... Not so very different from creating specific code for particular objects such as ammo based/non ammo based weapons, as proposed by SirCamps, is it? So there's another reason why following your own reasoning this is a bad idea.
And let's not forget; a wise man (yup, you) once told me that the game is the way it is because the devs have decided it should be so, and it's rather rude to try to impose my own way of thinking onto the whole community, like I did regarding the engines/maneuverability. Then why, oh master, have you yourself fallen prey to this negative attitude towards the Dev's work, and why are you, once so humble, now imposing your views (there should be countermeasures, and here's my proposal on how they should work) onto the community? Let it go, master... Let it go before it consumes you. It would be a disaster for the entire school of Celebrim, and for me personaly to loose such a valuable mentor to the dark forces he himself so often warned us for.
Some of Celebrims ideas I like, some I don't. It's worth thinking about though. But Celebrim... Wouldn't all these countermeasures create more network traffic and server calculations? I thought those were precisely your arguments against rebalancing the rockets as proposed by SirCamps in the "the [sunflare/fighter/bomber] fix" thread... Besides, countermeasures require creating specific code for particular (new) objects: "equipment slots" and the various pieces of equipment that go in it... Not so very different from creating specific code for particular objects such as ammo based/non ammo based weapons, as proposed by SirCamps, is it? So there's another reason why following your own reasoning this is a bad idea.
And let's not forget; a wise man (yup, you) once told me that the game is the way it is because the devs have decided it should be so, and it's rather rude to try to impose my own way of thinking onto the whole community, like I did regarding the engines/maneuverability. Then why, oh master, have you yourself fallen prey to this negative attitude towards the Dev's work, and why are you, once so humble, now imposing your views (there should be countermeasures, and here's my proposal on how they should work) onto the community? Let it go, master... Let it go before it consumes you. It would be a disaster for the entire school of Celebrim, and for me personaly to loose such a valuable mentor to the dark forces he himself so often warned us for.
Nighty: I'm not sure you aren't misunderstanding me.
"Wouldn't all these countermeasures create more network traffic and server calculations? I thought those were precisely your arguments against rebalancing the rockets as proposed by SirCamps in the "the [sunflare/fighter/bomber] fix" thread.."
First, the specific complaint against SirCamps was increasing the cycle rate of an ammunition consuming weapon. We already have statements from the devs indicating that this creates to much network traffic and that for now such ideas cannot be implemented.
In theory, everything is going to create additional burden on the server, the client, and/or the connection. In my suggestion regarding countermeasures, I try to balance the burden created by the feature with the advantage it gives to gameplay and throwout any idea that can be achieved by doing something similar. For instance, AMS is a cool idea, but since the net effect is the same as ECM, then ECM would be better. Of course, if ECM as described creates too much burden, that too will have to go.
"Besides, countermeasures require creating specific code for particular (new) objects: "equipment slots" and the various pieces of equipment that go in it... Not so very different from creating specific code for particular objects such as ammo based/non ammo based weapons, as proposed by SirCamps, is it? So there's another reason why following your own reasoning this is a bad idea."
Actually it is different. It's different because ammo based weapons already exist and can probably be balanced without creating alot of new code. On the other hand, none of the above gizmos exist. The ideal solution is to make use of existing code as much as possible (at least that's how I'd feel about it if I were writing), but in order for any new thing to exist you have to create some new stuff. The trick is deciding what is worth working on and what is not (which isn't for us to do, but maybe by discussing the merits of the various ideas we can help the devs make the best decision). Maybe ideally all of the above could be created, but probably you would have to choose what would be the best to implement from all the ideas you have. That's why I make such extensive lists; not because I'm demanding everything, but because I don't want something to be overlooked in favor of something that might not add as much to gameplay.
"a wise man (yup, you) once told me that the game is the way it is because the devs have decided it should be so, and it's rather rude to try to impose my own way of thinking onto the whole community"
Did I say that? Hmm, I like being right. Thanks. Try not to compliment me too often, or my head might explode.
Again, the difference is that nothing I'm suggesting exists. I think there is a difference between trying to rally people for a change in an existing feature, and trying to solicite input on a feature that hasn't yet been (and maybe never will be) implemented. I think that there is an even bigger difference in doing that and writing a post in which you demand an abrupt change in a feature that the devs have said is part of thier final design or which is so intrinsic to the game that one can't help but suspect it is close to the final design.
"Then why, oh master, have you yourself fallen prey to this negative attitude towards the Dev's work"
Look again, Grasshopper. ;) Where in my original post do you see negative attitude toward the Dev's work?
"now imposing your views (there should be countermeasures, and here's my proposal on how they should work)"
Padawan, read my opening statements again. ;) Did I actually say what you have accused me of? And remember, I'm not suggesting changing anything, and I think I do try to suggest things which seem to be in line with the devs philosophy as best as I understand it. If it turns out otherwise, then the old ideas get dropped and I try to talk about things in terms of what the devs have revealed. And by all means, if this is hard and doesn't fit with the feature list, the devs don't need my permission not to add it. The game can work fine without countermeasures. They are being mentioned because they are a typical feature of these sort of games and might possibly add something to gameplay.
"Wouldn't all these countermeasures create more network traffic and server calculations? I thought those were precisely your arguments against rebalancing the rockets as proposed by SirCamps in the "the [sunflare/fighter/bomber] fix" thread.."
First, the specific complaint against SirCamps was increasing the cycle rate of an ammunition consuming weapon. We already have statements from the devs indicating that this creates to much network traffic and that for now such ideas cannot be implemented.
In theory, everything is going to create additional burden on the server, the client, and/or the connection. In my suggestion regarding countermeasures, I try to balance the burden created by the feature with the advantage it gives to gameplay and throwout any idea that can be achieved by doing something similar. For instance, AMS is a cool idea, but since the net effect is the same as ECM, then ECM would be better. Of course, if ECM as described creates too much burden, that too will have to go.
"Besides, countermeasures require creating specific code for particular (new) objects: "equipment slots" and the various pieces of equipment that go in it... Not so very different from creating specific code for particular objects such as ammo based/non ammo based weapons, as proposed by SirCamps, is it? So there's another reason why following your own reasoning this is a bad idea."
Actually it is different. It's different because ammo based weapons already exist and can probably be balanced without creating alot of new code. On the other hand, none of the above gizmos exist. The ideal solution is to make use of existing code as much as possible (at least that's how I'd feel about it if I were writing), but in order for any new thing to exist you have to create some new stuff. The trick is deciding what is worth working on and what is not (which isn't for us to do, but maybe by discussing the merits of the various ideas we can help the devs make the best decision). Maybe ideally all of the above could be created, but probably you would have to choose what would be the best to implement from all the ideas you have. That's why I make such extensive lists; not because I'm demanding everything, but because I don't want something to be overlooked in favor of something that might not add as much to gameplay.
"a wise man (yup, you) once told me that the game is the way it is because the devs have decided it should be so, and it's rather rude to try to impose my own way of thinking onto the whole community"
Did I say that? Hmm, I like being right. Thanks. Try not to compliment me too often, or my head might explode.
Again, the difference is that nothing I'm suggesting exists. I think there is a difference between trying to rally people for a change in an existing feature, and trying to solicite input on a feature that hasn't yet been (and maybe never will be) implemented. I think that there is an even bigger difference in doing that and writing a post in which you demand an abrupt change in a feature that the devs have said is part of thier final design or which is so intrinsic to the game that one can't help but suspect it is close to the final design.
"Then why, oh master, have you yourself fallen prey to this negative attitude towards the Dev's work"
Look again, Grasshopper. ;) Where in my original post do you see negative attitude toward the Dev's work?
"now imposing your views (there should be countermeasures, and here's my proposal on how they should work)"
Padawan, read my opening statements again. ;) Did I actually say what you have accused me of? And remember, I'm not suggesting changing anything, and I think I do try to suggest things which seem to be in line with the devs philosophy as best as I understand it. If it turns out otherwise, then the old ideas get dropped and I try to talk about things in terms of what the devs have revealed. And by all means, if this is hard and doesn't fit with the feature list, the devs don't need my permission not to add it. The game can work fine without countermeasures. They are being mentioned because they are a typical feature of these sort of games and might possibly add something to gameplay.
I like the idea of the "smart" ECM with the premature proximity detonator, but I'd much rather NOT see anything like the "dumb" ECM that confuses the tracking of missiles. The reason being that Geminis and any other guided missile right now is already easy as hell to dodge. By adding ECM, chaff and flares, you're practically making them even more useless. And remember, Vendetta's dogfighting style reflects that of WWI and WWII. BVR missiles (let alone missiles altogether, but let's put that aside) didn't exist back then, and so the need for chaff and flares didn't either. Why would you want to dump countermeasures on visual range missiles that can already be dodged? Isn't that a bit of overkill? I'd say so.
That being said, do you remember the post I made about the "new" missiles? Every missile would be contact-only, but would have quicker and better target tracking. However, the player would be hinted in one way or another as to what type of missile (radar-guided, laser-guided, heat-seeking, etc.) that was being fired, and in that respect the player would use their skills and experience to know what to do (turn off radar, shut off engines, hide behind obstacles, etc.) in order to dodge 'em... if they choose not to simply boost away that is.
Dodging missiles should be a skill, not a matter of flipping a switch or dropping chaff and flare in hopes that it'll stray off target. Why? Because it's more fun that way, and it makes guided missiles actually useful for a change. If everyone and their dog bought ECM, even if only for bombers and frigates, nobody would bother mounting guided missiles on to their fighters. I'd much rather see the WWII style of combat be preserved than to see lots of gadgets that basically take away the skill of dodging altogether.
That being said, do you remember the post I made about the "new" missiles? Every missile would be contact-only, but would have quicker and better target tracking. However, the player would be hinted in one way or another as to what type of missile (radar-guided, laser-guided, heat-seeking, etc.) that was being fired, and in that respect the player would use their skills and experience to know what to do (turn off radar, shut off engines, hide behind obstacles, etc.) in order to dodge 'em... if they choose not to simply boost away that is.
Dodging missiles should be a skill, not a matter of flipping a switch or dropping chaff and flare in hopes that it'll stray off target. Why? Because it's more fun that way, and it makes guided missiles actually useful for a change. If everyone and their dog bought ECM, even if only for bombers and frigates, nobody would bother mounting guided missiles on to their fighters. I'd much rather see the WWII style of combat be preserved than to see lots of gadgets that basically take away the skill of dodging altogether.
Arolte: I kinda agree with Celebrim here; both of you have some good points though. Combat should indeed require skill, but technology to help a little is not something I'd rule out immediately either.
But I'm kinda worried when I read stuff like this. It's as if you all want to keep vendetta down to some giant massive multiplayer fragfest; I disagree there. Battle should not be encouraged to the point where all you ever do is fight and fight and fight. Fighting is part of the game, but there should be other things to do as well. The game is not some UT clone in space, but a MMORPG. That means it will have to take months and months to develop your char, you should be sucked into the game to the point where you will actualy be worrying about your cargo and life, instead of just some silly fragfest. If you want to play a shoot 'em up, play UT. If you wanna play a shoot 'em up in space, play X-Wing vs Tie Fighter, Freespace 2 online or whatever. There are plenty of games that cater to the fast action packed shoot 'em up genre, but little to no games that cater to the character development kind of game the devs want Vendetta to be.
My vision of the game will be one where I can choose a carreer as a fighter for the military, bounty hunter, pirate, trader, smuggler or whatever and spend months acquiring some wealth and better ships, honing my skills in non lethal combat. The penalty for death should be greater. This would make people be more cautious when they travel dangerous regions of space, but this would also demotivate pirates etc... from just attacking everyone they see, since they could die in the process, and even if the target is a noob, he might know some veterans who're willing to seek the offender out and hunt him down.
So instead of focusing so much on the combat aspects of the game, let's not forget the direction the game is going to. Battle will have its place, but it won't be the only element in the game. For those of you that are triggerhappy, some form of non-lethal combat could be put in place, like some sort of competition in arenas with nerfed weapons: they don't do actual damage, so you won't die, but just do "simulated damage". If you "die" in the arena you're just disabled and towed back to the station for simulated repair and reload.
Of course this doesn't rule out the possibility of "illegal arenas" where people fight with real weapons to the death, but the penalty for dying in the game is so great that only the most skilled warriors will take the risk of dying by entering such an underground competition.
It's a bit offtopic, but I just felt the need to remind you guys that in the final game combat will probably not be the only thing you can do to amuse yourselves, and I hope actual combat will be greatly discouraged by raising the penalty of death, and by making it illegal in government controlled regions of space. You don't see people in real life going out and fighting everyone they see either, for the very same reasons. Yes, I know, this is a game and not real life, but if you want to turn it into a fragfest, what distinguishes it from other similar games? Nothing. There's already enough fragfests; it would be nice to see some company putting out a game that tries to be different from the other "thirteen in a dozen" multiplayer space combat games.
Just my two (euro)cents.
But I'm kinda worried when I read stuff like this. It's as if you all want to keep vendetta down to some giant massive multiplayer fragfest; I disagree there. Battle should not be encouraged to the point where all you ever do is fight and fight and fight. Fighting is part of the game, but there should be other things to do as well. The game is not some UT clone in space, but a MMORPG. That means it will have to take months and months to develop your char, you should be sucked into the game to the point where you will actualy be worrying about your cargo and life, instead of just some silly fragfest. If you want to play a shoot 'em up, play UT. If you wanna play a shoot 'em up in space, play X-Wing vs Tie Fighter, Freespace 2 online or whatever. There are plenty of games that cater to the fast action packed shoot 'em up genre, but little to no games that cater to the character development kind of game the devs want Vendetta to be.
My vision of the game will be one where I can choose a carreer as a fighter for the military, bounty hunter, pirate, trader, smuggler or whatever and spend months acquiring some wealth and better ships, honing my skills in non lethal combat. The penalty for death should be greater. This would make people be more cautious when they travel dangerous regions of space, but this would also demotivate pirates etc... from just attacking everyone they see, since they could die in the process, and even if the target is a noob, he might know some veterans who're willing to seek the offender out and hunt him down.
So instead of focusing so much on the combat aspects of the game, let's not forget the direction the game is going to. Battle will have its place, but it won't be the only element in the game. For those of you that are triggerhappy, some form of non-lethal combat could be put in place, like some sort of competition in arenas with nerfed weapons: they don't do actual damage, so you won't die, but just do "simulated damage". If you "die" in the arena you're just disabled and towed back to the station for simulated repair and reload.
Of course this doesn't rule out the possibility of "illegal arenas" where people fight with real weapons to the death, but the penalty for dying in the game is so great that only the most skilled warriors will take the risk of dying by entering such an underground competition.
It's a bit offtopic, but I just felt the need to remind you guys that in the final game combat will probably not be the only thing you can do to amuse yourselves, and I hope actual combat will be greatly discouraged by raising the penalty of death, and by making it illegal in government controlled regions of space. You don't see people in real life going out and fighting everyone they see either, for the very same reasons. Yes, I know, this is a game and not real life, but if you want to turn it into a fragfest, what distinguishes it from other similar games? Nothing. There's already enough fragfests; it would be nice to see some company putting out a game that tries to be different from the other "thirteen in a dozen" multiplayer space combat games.
Just my two (euro)cents.
Ultimate countermeasure: If you sit still next to a roid your radar signature blends with the roid. You are invisible to radar unless the person trying to target you is within 300m.
<Zathras> UH OH! Pirate! *hides in the roids* HELP in sector 10 please!
If they cannot see you, they cannot fire missiles at you.
USELESS in a dogfight tho'. Who slows down and hides next to a roid with missiles allready incoming?
<Zathras> UH OH! Pirate! *hides in the roids* HELP in sector 10 please!
If they cannot see you, they cannot fire missiles at you.
USELESS in a dogfight tho'. Who slows down and hides next to a roid with missiles allready incoming?
Arolte: Although we are approaching this from two different directions, we seem to basically be in agreement on this.
Nighty:
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=2298
I usually spend less time focusing on suggestions for the RPG aspects of the game because I have so little information about what the devs want for that part of the game. I don't want to get the community too hyped up for something that may not even happen, but the above post was prompted to a large extent because I thought people were forgetting about the fact that this is supposed to eventually become a RPG in thier posts.
Nighty:
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=2298
I usually spend less time focusing on suggestions for the RPG aspects of the game because I have so little information about what the devs want for that part of the game. I don't want to get the community too hyped up for something that may not even happen, but the above post was prompted to a large extent because I thought people were forgetting about the fact that this is supposed to eventually become a RPG in thier posts.
Yes, Demonen, exactly. See, that's one example of skill right there. Using your environment as a tactical advantage is what it's all about. Although radar masking hasn't been implemented, you can still use asteroids to your advantage. But anyway, that's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about.. Rather than flipping a switch and watching the missiles explode prematurely or whatever, you'll need to use your brains to figure out what type of projectile is being fired at you, and react accordingly.
Nighty, while you raise a few good points, I'll still have to stick with what I've said. You'll always run the risk of running into pirates in the Vendetta universe, regardless of whether you want to fight or not. It's something that everyone will have to accept. You'll always have to find ways to either defend yourself or avoid fighting altogether.
If you choose the peaceful path of trading or mining asteroids, then by all means you're free to boost away and avoid confrontation altogether. My feeling is that Vendetta's universe will eventually be big enough that you'll hardly run into as many battles as you do right now. So you may get your wish whether or not the deathmatch aspects of the game remain.
While I can understand the need for "cheap" countermeasures for those who don't like to fight (or even for newbies), I also see it as an exploit for those who choose combat... and that's my greatest fear--that the skill of dogfighting will eventually be taken away to some insanely boring technology. IMO the easiest way to solve this problem is to simply provide fast trade/mining ships (but at a VERY HIGH cost) to players as a way of avoiding combat, rather than resorting to ECM systems and whatnot.
The best defense is often to avoid combat altogether, and having a fast ship will allow those people who don't like to fight to carry on with their own business... but of course at a high price. Anyone fortunate enough to catch these fast trade/mining ships should also be rewarded for their efforts, of course. So I think the solution to the problem you present, Nighty, is in the ships and balance of ships themselves.
Nighty, while you raise a few good points, I'll still have to stick with what I've said. You'll always run the risk of running into pirates in the Vendetta universe, regardless of whether you want to fight or not. It's something that everyone will have to accept. You'll always have to find ways to either defend yourself or avoid fighting altogether.
If you choose the peaceful path of trading or mining asteroids, then by all means you're free to boost away and avoid confrontation altogether. My feeling is that Vendetta's universe will eventually be big enough that you'll hardly run into as many battles as you do right now. So you may get your wish whether or not the deathmatch aspects of the game remain.
While I can understand the need for "cheap" countermeasures for those who don't like to fight (or even for newbies), I also see it as an exploit for those who choose combat... and that's my greatest fear--that the skill of dogfighting will eventually be taken away to some insanely boring technology. IMO the easiest way to solve this problem is to simply provide fast trade/mining ships (but at a VERY HIGH cost) to players as a way of avoiding combat, rather than resorting to ECM systems and whatnot.
The best defense is often to avoid combat altogether, and having a fast ship will allow those people who don't like to fight to carry on with their own business... but of course at a high price. Anyone fortunate enough to catch these fast trade/mining ships should also be rewarded for their efforts, of course. So I think the solution to the problem you present, Nighty, is in the ships and balance of ships themselves.
Keeping the RPG element in mind this might be fun. It could be classified as special or advanced equipment, similiar to special or advanced ships. Players would only be rewarded with such a device after jumping through a great deal of hoops and would only be able to own one, two or three of them at a time.
I think a good thing for the ECM to do would be to simply decrease the proximity of incoming weapons. A 30m rocket could have its prox cut down to 20 or 15 or something.
ECCM (electronic counter counter measures) would also have to be available as special equipment and should be more easily obtained than the ECM.
Or it could all just be left out. Personally I'd like to be able to target incoming rockets and shoot them down myself.with the g key and shoot them down with tachyons. Perhaps there could also be a chaff-flak gun that makes shooting down rockets easier but isn't useful as an offensive weapon.
Asp
I think a good thing for the ECM to do would be to simply decrease the proximity of incoming weapons. A 30m rocket could have its prox cut down to 20 or 15 or something.
ECCM (electronic counter counter measures) would also have to be available as special equipment and should be more easily obtained than the ECM.
Or it could all just be left out. Personally I'd like to be able to target incoming rockets and shoot them down myself.with the g key and shoot them down with tachyons. Perhaps there could also be a chaff-flak gun that makes shooting down rockets easier but isn't useful as an offensive weapon.
Asp
"I think a good thing for the ECM to do would be to simply decrease the proximity of incoming weapons. A 30m rocket could have its prox cut down to 20 or 15 or something."
That would work fine for a fighter class craft, but it works less well for a 50m long freighter. For a craft capable of dodging rockets, ECM is often a suboptimal choice and a skilled fighter pilot using ECM would definately have to pay attention and toggle the ECM off when necessary. You'd probably be better off with a countermeasure dispencer, and you'd probably be even better off than that with some sort of engine enhancement to improve your thrust or speed. But for a Freighter that can't dodge and more or less would be hit by every rocket coming its way, ECM is essential for avoiding the maximum damage of each of those rockets. Just because we don't have bigger ships doesn't mean we shouldn't plan for them.
"Personally I'd like to be able to target incoming rockets and shoot them down myself.with the g key and shoot them down with tachyons."
Good as you may be Asp, I don't think you'd be able to shoot down 6 or 12 rockets fired at you. Quite the contrary I think pausing to try to shoot down any of them would distract you from dodging and make it more likely that you would be hit by some of them. I just don't see making rockets targetable as any kind of solution, and just as a personal preference it reminds me too much of some of the worst features of the X-Wing series.
That would work fine for a fighter class craft, but it works less well for a 50m long freighter. For a craft capable of dodging rockets, ECM is often a suboptimal choice and a skilled fighter pilot using ECM would definately have to pay attention and toggle the ECM off when necessary. You'd probably be better off with a countermeasure dispencer, and you'd probably be even better off than that with some sort of engine enhancement to improve your thrust or speed. But for a Freighter that can't dodge and more or less would be hit by every rocket coming its way, ECM is essential for avoiding the maximum damage of each of those rockets. Just because we don't have bigger ships doesn't mean we shouldn't plan for them.
"Personally I'd like to be able to target incoming rockets and shoot them down myself.with the g key and shoot them down with tachyons."
Good as you may be Asp, I don't think you'd be able to shoot down 6 or 12 rockets fired at you. Quite the contrary I think pausing to try to shoot down any of them would distract you from dodging and make it more likely that you would be hit by some of them. I just don't see making rockets targetable as any kind of solution, and just as a personal preference it reminds me too much of some of the worst features of the X-Wing series.
ECCM? Now this is getting ridiculous. Before you know it we'll also have ECCCMs... and then ECCCCMs. Jesus, people, what's wrong with a little skill? ECMs are primarily used today for BVR missiles, which Vendetta doesn't have.
I mean it's nice and all to have all kinds of wacky gadgets, but this is something that would potentially ruin dogfighting altogether, making your weapon selection more like guesswork and luck--Oops, I accidentally brought homing missiles against an ECM fighter, now I'm screwed! Grrrrr...
I mean it's nice and all to have all kinds of wacky gadgets, but this is something that would potentially ruin dogfighting altogether, making your weapon selection more like guesswork and luck--Oops, I accidentally brought homing missiles against an ECM fighter, now I'm screwed! Grrrrr...
I agree with asp. I have for a long time. Let us at least try to shoot rockets. Now, with unguided rockets, it wouldn't be that useful. But if you could destroy one swarmer with a railgun shot, the whole batch would probably explode. And that would be a nice feature. :D
Arolte: Be careful about calling things ridiculous.
"I mean it's nice and all to have all kinds of wacky gadgets, but this is something that would potentially ruin dogfighting altogether, making your weapon selection more like guesswork and luck--Oops, I accidentally brought homing missiles against an ECM fighter, now I'm screwed! Grrrrr..."
ECCM would ruin dogfighting altogether? I haven't spend alot of time talking about ECCM because I'm not entirely sure if it would work or if it would work, whether its worth the server load it creates. But, lets just assume for a moment its easy to implement and address your claims.
ECM would only have an effect on you if you were using a non-energy weapon. Yes, ECM is only going to hurt you if you are what people incorrectly call a 'rocket rammer'. But does ECM as I described it really kill rockets 100% of the time? No, a quick look at it shows that 25% of the time it has no effect, and 25% of the time vs. a jackhammer or sunflare it has almost the same effect as getting hit by a rocket. And for that the ECM ship has to be expending power continiously, reducing his ability to turbo away from the threat.
But lets suppose that not needing to dodge 50% of the rockets is enough to totally nerf rockets. Well, why are you only armed with rockets anyway? Why didn't you consider that you might come up against a ship equipped with ECM, a counter measure dispencer, and force disapating armor which was relatively immune to rockets and homing missiles and LOAD MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF WEAPON ON YOUR SHIP.(!!!) You think maybe having a gauss or a tachyon as a secondary weapon might be a good idea? Gee, what an original thought. Or, if you were so in love with rockets that you didn't want to load anything but rockets, why didn't you equip ECCM to nullify the advantages of any ECM ships you might encounter? There is no luck involved here. If you are depending entirely on your skill with rockets (or your skill with homing missiles whatever that means), then you ought to be screwed against someone that thought 'Gee, everyone is using nothing but rockets, maybe I should equip my fighter to defend against that'.
Besides, rock-paper-sissors is not entirely a bad thing.
PS: roguelazer: If swarms are fired far enough away from you that you have a clear view of them, they probably aren't that dangerous anyway.
"I mean it's nice and all to have all kinds of wacky gadgets, but this is something that would potentially ruin dogfighting altogether, making your weapon selection more like guesswork and luck--Oops, I accidentally brought homing missiles against an ECM fighter, now I'm screwed! Grrrrr..."
ECCM would ruin dogfighting altogether? I haven't spend alot of time talking about ECCM because I'm not entirely sure if it would work or if it would work, whether its worth the server load it creates. But, lets just assume for a moment its easy to implement and address your claims.
ECM would only have an effect on you if you were using a non-energy weapon. Yes, ECM is only going to hurt you if you are what people incorrectly call a 'rocket rammer'. But does ECM as I described it really kill rockets 100% of the time? No, a quick look at it shows that 25% of the time it has no effect, and 25% of the time vs. a jackhammer or sunflare it has almost the same effect as getting hit by a rocket. And for that the ECM ship has to be expending power continiously, reducing his ability to turbo away from the threat.
But lets suppose that not needing to dodge 50% of the rockets is enough to totally nerf rockets. Well, why are you only armed with rockets anyway? Why didn't you consider that you might come up against a ship equipped with ECM, a counter measure dispencer, and force disapating armor which was relatively immune to rockets and homing missiles and LOAD MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF WEAPON ON YOUR SHIP.(!!!) You think maybe having a gauss or a tachyon as a secondary weapon might be a good idea? Gee, what an original thought. Or, if you were so in love with rockets that you didn't want to load anything but rockets, why didn't you equip ECCM to nullify the advantages of any ECM ships you might encounter? There is no luck involved here. If you are depending entirely on your skill with rockets (or your skill with homing missiles whatever that means), then you ought to be screwed against someone that thought 'Gee, everyone is using nothing but rockets, maybe I should equip my fighter to defend against that'.
Besides, rock-paper-sissors is not entirely a bad thing.
PS: roguelazer: If swarms are fired far enough away from you that you have a clear view of them, they probably aren't that dangerous anyway.
Swarms hurt if you're carrying a flag. It is pretty hard to dodge 10 swarms whilst trying to dodge other types of weapons too. But think- one railgun shot could take out 5 swarms if the launcher had fired them while accelerating.
Celebrim, judging by your use of percentages what you're saying is that these weapons work arbitrarily. So 25% of the time they work or 75% of the time they don't work. What's the point? There should be some solid logic behind how the ECM works, and not just some random value tossed in to reflect how effective it is.
To me this seems like a lot of work has to be put into programming something that will only work randomly. It'll turn into a game of dice-rolling and chances, rather than something with logic and skill behind it. My concern is that everyone's going to equip ECM gadgets and missiles will be totally ineffective. Yeah that's great, you can equip more weapons other than missiles, which is what I do 99% of the time anyway. But that'll also give an unfair advantage to people only use gauss and tachyons/gravitons, and will make Geminis even MORE ineffective (as if they weren't enough).
Why is ECM important to Vendetta's gameplay? CTF will be taken out, meaning no more players who are cruising across sectors. You can also boost away from a homing/swarm missile VERY easily without taking damage. So why is ECM needed exactly? It just seems like an idea that was tossed out to say, "HEY!! Look what I found! Why don't we add this into the game?" Do ECMs really have any practical use if the simple action of boosting can get you to avoid rockets/missiles completely? That's what I'm trying to question here.
To me this seems like a lot of work has to be put into programming something that will only work randomly. It'll turn into a game of dice-rolling and chances, rather than something with logic and skill behind it. My concern is that everyone's going to equip ECM gadgets and missiles will be totally ineffective. Yeah that's great, you can equip more weapons other than missiles, which is what I do 99% of the time anyway. But that'll also give an unfair advantage to people only use gauss and tachyons/gravitons, and will make Geminis even MORE ineffective (as if they weren't enough).
Why is ECM important to Vendetta's gameplay? CTF will be taken out, meaning no more players who are cruising across sectors. You can also boost away from a homing/swarm missile VERY easily without taking damage. So why is ECM needed exactly? It just seems like an idea that was tossed out to say, "HEY!! Look what I found! Why don't we add this into the game?" Do ECMs really have any practical use if the simple action of boosting can get you to avoid rockets/missiles completely? That's what I'm trying to question here.