Forums » Suggestions
Budweiser said it best:
"True."
"True."
We have obviously heard about the Itani Valkyrie, rocket-ramming, and the sunflare rockets ad nauseum in the forums and while in the game. I'm going to talk about those, but I'm not going to dwell on nerfing them. Everyone else is having a dandy time doing that, but there is another aspect of this discussion that many have touched on but none have effectively addressed.
Consequences.
Yes, that's right. Not the vessels or the weapons or even the tactics themselves, but the game mechanics. But before I start to address this, I want to make a few facts very clear:
1. I am new. Get over it.
2. Players who routinely engage in tactics such as "rocket-ramming" with the immediate or eventual result of their own self-destruction experience negligible consequences to their repeated deaths.
3. The Itani Valkyrie is intended to be and is legitimately superior to other fighter craft. I will not dispute this.
4. The Valkyrie and other special craft are not in any form of scarcity as things stand. People are stockpiling them. I will be kicking this fact in the head until it bleeds.
5. There is a dominance of a very small number of effective tactics within the game at present, and the game is tending toward further _convergence_ rather than _divergence_ of tactical options.
This is a test. I understand that. As a participant, I have an obligation to forward my opinions with regard to pressing issues, so here's my take on each of the points.
Point 1. We've nailed this already.
Point 2. Rocket-ramming. It's happening a lot. It is annoying. However, I'm not here to grief about it; if you happen to have the capacity for amusement on that kind of scale, all the power to you to pursue it to whatever end. I mentioned in another thread that what peeves me is not the fact that I was more than once blown out of the sky yesterday by this tactic, but the fact that the individual doing this felt no consequences whatsoever to his own repeated death. He picked up another ship, front-loaded it with sunflares, and was back up in the sector within seconds.
No. Hold the phone for a second. That last part isn't right. No well-constructed game (once again, I am very aware of the fact that this is a test) should allow death -- much less the loss of an expensive piece of equipment like a star fighter -- to be taken so lightly. This guy was going through them like popcorn. Fix it. We should have an environment where you CAN employ such a tactic if you want, but -- here's the important part -- you feel the pain afterward. Hard.
Point 3. A lot of people want to nerf the Valkyrie. Its armor was already kicked down a couple notches. Twice. Stop it. Nerfing things (with a few notable exceptions) is rarely a good solution to a problem. The fact that there is a problem means there is something in the game mechanics that is very probably far more deep-rooted than a statistic attached to a ship. As I mentioned in my second argument, I don't care what you do with the frelling thing -- you can frontload it with a nuclear warhead and a jar of mayonnaise and catapult it into my backyard if that suits your fancy. But don't expect the FBI to leave you alone. Especially if the mayo is rotten.
The ship is superior. It's supposed to be; it's ADVANCED technology. At this point I'd advise you all to pull out your pocket Oxford English Dictionaries and look that word up. It's not the ship you all need to focus on, it's the way it's being used. This brings me to my next point.
Point 4. I spoke with someone from my nation (Gold) yesterday who told me that she had between twenty and thirty Valkyries sitting in various stations throughout the Vendetta universe.
What?
No, once again, all wrong. I'm not against a black market, as it adds some degree of fun to the game. This is special technology -- but every little girl, Toto, and aunt Em has one. And we're blasting eachother so far up the Yellow Brick Road that the Wizard is starting to get a little nervous. Rightly so -- we've loaded them with enough explosives to send Oz up in a mushroom cloud. Make these things harder to get, devs. And make them damn painful to lose. Even I've got one... that's saying something.
Point 5. The clearest sign of imbalance within a game is the widespread prevalence of a single group of tactics that requires special and unorthodox ingenuity to defeat. We have our tri-flare Valkyries and our rocket rammers. If anyone would care to tell me of any others so powerful, I'd like to hear them. Back to the well-constructed game theory: no such game should allow any group of tactics to become dominant in this manner. Part of the entertainment factor is the ability to mold your ship and your loadout to your particular tactics, perfect them, and do well. That's not to say that every Joe with a set of widgets and a Vulture should be on a level playing field with the best pilots. Of course not. I'm talking about the ability of everyone to develop unique tactics. We simply don't have that opportunity right now; come too close to Sector 9 and someone will feed you a triplet of flaming death. Nobody dogfights anymore, there is no combat, not unless two or more pilots specifically agree to "Vultures, energy weapons, in Sector 10."
That's called tactical convergence -- we don't want that, it's a bad thing. What we DO want is the opposite: tactical divergence. Competition through multiplicity. Not load-up-your-rockets-or-die syndrome. Catch my drift?
I hope that my perspective has had some positive effect if you were able to put up with me through this whole dialogue. Here's what I ask: if you disagree with anything I've said, for heaven's sake, set your flamethrower down and think before putting your fingers to the keyboard. I'm open to corrections and improvement; I'm not about to pretend I know all of the answers, and this is just a small response to a big issue that encompasses much more. Send your thoughts.
Consequences.
Yes, that's right. Not the vessels or the weapons or even the tactics themselves, but the game mechanics. But before I start to address this, I want to make a few facts very clear:
1. I am new. Get over it.
2. Players who routinely engage in tactics such as "rocket-ramming" with the immediate or eventual result of their own self-destruction experience negligible consequences to their repeated deaths.
3. The Itani Valkyrie is intended to be and is legitimately superior to other fighter craft. I will not dispute this.
4. The Valkyrie and other special craft are not in any form of scarcity as things stand. People are stockpiling them. I will be kicking this fact in the head until it bleeds.
5. There is a dominance of a very small number of effective tactics within the game at present, and the game is tending toward further _convergence_ rather than _divergence_ of tactical options.
This is a test. I understand that. As a participant, I have an obligation to forward my opinions with regard to pressing issues, so here's my take on each of the points.
Point 1. We've nailed this already.
Point 2. Rocket-ramming. It's happening a lot. It is annoying. However, I'm not here to grief about it; if you happen to have the capacity for amusement on that kind of scale, all the power to you to pursue it to whatever end. I mentioned in another thread that what peeves me is not the fact that I was more than once blown out of the sky yesterday by this tactic, but the fact that the individual doing this felt no consequences whatsoever to his own repeated death. He picked up another ship, front-loaded it with sunflares, and was back up in the sector within seconds.
No. Hold the phone for a second. That last part isn't right. No well-constructed game (once again, I am very aware of the fact that this is a test) should allow death -- much less the loss of an expensive piece of equipment like a star fighter -- to be taken so lightly. This guy was going through them like popcorn. Fix it. We should have an environment where you CAN employ such a tactic if you want, but -- here's the important part -- you feel the pain afterward. Hard.
Point 3. A lot of people want to nerf the Valkyrie. Its armor was already kicked down a couple notches. Twice. Stop it. Nerfing things (with a few notable exceptions) is rarely a good solution to a problem. The fact that there is a problem means there is something in the game mechanics that is very probably far more deep-rooted than a statistic attached to a ship. As I mentioned in my second argument, I don't care what you do with the frelling thing -- you can frontload it with a nuclear warhead and a jar of mayonnaise and catapult it into my backyard if that suits your fancy. But don't expect the FBI to leave you alone. Especially if the mayo is rotten.
The ship is superior. It's supposed to be; it's ADVANCED technology. At this point I'd advise you all to pull out your pocket Oxford English Dictionaries and look that word up. It's not the ship you all need to focus on, it's the way it's being used. This brings me to my next point.
Point 4. I spoke with someone from my nation (Gold) yesterday who told me that she had between twenty and thirty Valkyries sitting in various stations throughout the Vendetta universe.
What?
No, once again, all wrong. I'm not against a black market, as it adds some degree of fun to the game. This is special technology -- but every little girl, Toto, and aunt Em has one. And we're blasting eachother so far up the Yellow Brick Road that the Wizard is starting to get a little nervous. Rightly so -- we've loaded them with enough explosives to send Oz up in a mushroom cloud. Make these things harder to get, devs. And make them damn painful to lose. Even I've got one... that's saying something.
Point 5. The clearest sign of imbalance within a game is the widespread prevalence of a single group of tactics that requires special and unorthodox ingenuity to defeat. We have our tri-flare Valkyries and our rocket rammers. If anyone would care to tell me of any others so powerful, I'd like to hear them. Back to the well-constructed game theory: no such game should allow any group of tactics to become dominant in this manner. Part of the entertainment factor is the ability to mold your ship and your loadout to your particular tactics, perfect them, and do well. That's not to say that every Joe with a set of widgets and a Vulture should be on a level playing field with the best pilots. Of course not. I'm talking about the ability of everyone to develop unique tactics. We simply don't have that opportunity right now; come too close to Sector 9 and someone will feed you a triplet of flaming death. Nobody dogfights anymore, there is no combat, not unless two or more pilots specifically agree to "Vultures, energy weapons, in Sector 10."
That's called tactical convergence -- we don't want that, it's a bad thing. What we DO want is the opposite: tactical divergence. Competition through multiplicity. Not load-up-your-rockets-or-die syndrome. Catch my drift?
I hope that my perspective has had some positive effect if you were able to put up with me through this whole dialogue. Here's what I ask: if you disagree with anything I've said, for heaven's sake, set your flamethrower down and think before putting your fingers to the keyboard. I'm open to corrections and improvement; I'm not about to pretend I know all of the answers, and this is just a small response to a big issue that encompasses much more. Send your thoughts.
WOW! WOW! WOW! WOW!
That is most likely the best post I've ever read. I agree 100% with you. 100% man. Are you a professional game dev or something? You make Celebrim look like an amateur, which is REALLY hard to do!
That is most likely the best post I've ever read. I agree 100% with you. 100% man. Are you a professional game dev or something? You make Celebrim look like an amateur, which is REALLY hard to do!
Well said, Nethershaw. Hey devs. You readin' this? It's worth some major consideration.
*drops jaw*
so great that no one has even attempted to flame it! bravo!
so great that no one has even attempted to flame it! bravo!
mmmmhm.
i agree especially on the tactical convergence.
today was a good example (those involved know what i'm talking about). it's simply a problem when you get called lame for using other strategies than what is written in the minds of hrrm... valk jocks.
i agree especially on the tactical convergence.
today was a good example (those involved know what i'm talking about). it's simply a problem when you get called lame for using other strategies than what is written in the minds of hrrm... valk jocks.
Ok ill make an attempt to flame , just for the sake of it :D
point 1)
You are new, me is new everybody is new, so that doesnt matter. Only good ideas count
Point 2)
Said that already 1000th times. You know it is the limiting principle, when missions are implemented and all. You know, to acquire 1 valk, do missions for 45 minutes, you loose your valk, a couple more missions for 1 hour and let the time go up for acquiring them. Naturally, after a week or so, it starts again from 45 minuts or so, because it will get to difficult to attain one. Imagine needing to do missions for 200 hours just to gain 1 valk, nobody in his right mind would do so then.
point 3)
Not nerving the valk or any otehr special ship, when they are limited, this point wont be an issue any more.
point 4)
Stated this again in one of my previous posts, you can only store a max of 3 special ships. Not more, not less. This means 3 marauders, 3 proms and 3 valks. It willl for instance take you 10 gamehours to acqire thm the first time. for the secodn time, 15 hours, and so on and so on ...
At the same time, I proposed making the blck market more difficult to go to. Did anybody actually get his valk or prom or marauder from 18? I bet that it arent many who did so, and yes I did it. It is doablem but very very very difficult.
The stockpiling is so preevalent because people could get them very easy from sector 16. And people are talking now about making it possible to attain these specials again in there for training purposes. So if this is the case then, it should be possible to make it impossible for anyone to jump out of the sec 16 with a special ship from 16. Just give it an extra tag and let the warpholes check on this tag. It is only an added characteristic to the database and an added if loop in the code.
point 5)
Any succesfull tactic is used constantly.
you encounter a rocketramming valk: use a pro with a swarm layout
you encounter a insta nuke : use a rag with an all seeking layout and shoot them when he shoots his instanuke, on 9 of the 10 chances he is killed "destroyed by commentm, not the issues". This also works with a warthog, but it is much more difficult, and therefore a lesser chance of survival.
The only problem I still have is finding a good defense against a warthog with an advanced gatling. I was thinking about lightning mines or even better proxs to take them outm but the gatling willl just take them out befroe they can do harm. Naturally., you can shoot rockets when they get closem, but that isnt the best idea, because you will be ramming slightly :(
Now, a valk or a vulture with a double or tripple gauss is also very powefull and very hard to resist. Its because of them having to come close that a dedicated rocketeer has got to ram or flee. Because if you come close,you kinda ram with a gaussetup, you can expect to kill your oposer 4/5 times when the rocketteer holds his rockets because he doesnt want to do a ram.
Only defense against this is a swarmlayout. Butwhen the oposer has knowledge about this, it starts getting difficult again.
So dont forget every tactic that is used has got a countertactic, only problem is using the right one at the right moment.
PS: I know by disclosing this information, my small succesrate of kiling people like this will suffer even more, but hey it will make me find other combos.
point 1)
You are new, me is new everybody is new, so that doesnt matter. Only good ideas count
Point 2)
Said that already 1000th times. You know it is the limiting principle, when missions are implemented and all. You know, to acquire 1 valk, do missions for 45 minutes, you loose your valk, a couple more missions for 1 hour and let the time go up for acquiring them. Naturally, after a week or so, it starts again from 45 minuts or so, because it will get to difficult to attain one. Imagine needing to do missions for 200 hours just to gain 1 valk, nobody in his right mind would do so then.
point 3)
Not nerving the valk or any otehr special ship, when they are limited, this point wont be an issue any more.
point 4)
Stated this again in one of my previous posts, you can only store a max of 3 special ships. Not more, not less. This means 3 marauders, 3 proms and 3 valks. It willl for instance take you 10 gamehours to acqire thm the first time. for the secodn time, 15 hours, and so on and so on ...
At the same time, I proposed making the blck market more difficult to go to. Did anybody actually get his valk or prom or marauder from 18? I bet that it arent many who did so, and yes I did it. It is doablem but very very very difficult.
The stockpiling is so preevalent because people could get them very easy from sector 16. And people are talking now about making it possible to attain these specials again in there for training purposes. So if this is the case then, it should be possible to make it impossible for anyone to jump out of the sec 16 with a special ship from 16. Just give it an extra tag and let the warpholes check on this tag. It is only an added characteristic to the database and an added if loop in the code.
point 5)
Any succesfull tactic is used constantly.
you encounter a rocketramming valk: use a pro with a swarm layout
you encounter a insta nuke : use a rag with an all seeking layout and shoot them when he shoots his instanuke, on 9 of the 10 chances he is killed "destroyed by commentm, not the issues". This also works with a warthog, but it is much more difficult, and therefore a lesser chance of survival.
The only problem I still have is finding a good defense against a warthog with an advanced gatling. I was thinking about lightning mines or even better proxs to take them outm but the gatling willl just take them out befroe they can do harm. Naturally., you can shoot rockets when they get closem, but that isnt the best idea, because you will be ramming slightly :(
Now, a valk or a vulture with a double or tripple gauss is also very powefull and very hard to resist. Its because of them having to come close that a dedicated rocketeer has got to ram or flee. Because if you come close,you kinda ram with a gaussetup, you can expect to kill your oposer 4/5 times when the rocketteer holds his rockets because he doesnt want to do a ram.
Only defense against this is a swarmlayout. Butwhen the oposer has knowledge about this, it starts getting difficult again.
So dont forget every tactic that is used has got a countertactic, only problem is using the right one at the right moment.
PS: I know by disclosing this information, my small succesrate of kiling people like this will suffer even more, but hey it will make me find other combos.
Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated. ;)
"No well-constructed game (once again, I am very aware of the fact that this is a test) should allow death -- much less the loss of an expensive piece of equipment like a star fighter -- to be taken so lightly."
You mean like Doom, Unreal, Quake, Team Fortress, etc.?
"The clearest sign of imbalance within a game is the widespread prevalence of a single group of tactics that requires special and unorthodox ingenuity to defeat. We have our tri-flare Valkyries and our rocket rammers. If anyone would care to tell me of any others so powerful, I'd like to hear them. Back to the well-constructed game theory: no such game should allow any group of tactics to become dominant in this manner."
But, you do think that it should have superior (or as you say 'ADVANCED') weapons. Ok, I understand now.
Err... no I don't. At this point I'd advise you all to pull out your pocket Oxford English Dictionary and look that word 'ADVANCED' up.
To a large extent you are mistaking decisions made by the devs to keep the game in its present state easy and approachable for things that reflect the final design of the games.
"No well-constructed game (once again, I am very aware of the fact that this is a test) should allow death -- much less the loss of an expensive piece of equipment like a star fighter -- to be taken so lightly."
You mean like Doom, Unreal, Quake, Team Fortress, etc.?
"The clearest sign of imbalance within a game is the widespread prevalence of a single group of tactics that requires special and unorthodox ingenuity to defeat. We have our tri-flare Valkyries and our rocket rammers. If anyone would care to tell me of any others so powerful, I'd like to hear them. Back to the well-constructed game theory: no such game should allow any group of tactics to become dominant in this manner."
But, you do think that it should have superior (or as you say 'ADVANCED') weapons. Ok, I understand now.
Err... no I don't. At this point I'd advise you all to pull out your pocket Oxford English Dictionary and look that word 'ADVANCED' up.
To a large extent you are mistaking decisions made by the devs to keep the game in its present state easy and approachable for things that reflect the final design of the games.
Excellent post, Nethershaw.
/me looks off towards the community, "Who said newbies give up and leave without a word? This guy rocks!!"
I think I have a solution for the special ship problem. Yet I think the devs have thought of it.
------------
-=Building Ships (from scratch)=-
What would happen if [insert name of valk jock here] gets an unlucky barrel-roll and eats the rockets of an enemy. He returns to 18, hits buy ship, and quickly expects the Valkyrie to be available. But.... no!!! Valkyrie Status: "Not available." It seems that someone has neglected to do cargo runs to 18, so Station 18 is out of Valkyrie hulls.
Cool idea? You would need constant trade to keep ammo, repair bots, and hulls in stock at a station. Kinda like we have Wal-mart, K-mart, and whatnot. Not all of them have that CD you want, and you sure don't want to wait for it to come in. You go somewhere else. A place like station 11 would hold a fraction of the components that the home sectors or sector 9 could store. The consequences of this change would be far-reaching. A highly-trafficked station could add modular storage bays to hold more supplies. As it expanded, it could afford to hire the DSG or another guild for protection.
So, a rocket-rammer could mean big business. He goes through ships quickly? Some place has to supply them. But, oh, that brings me to another problem.
------------------------------
-=DIFFERENCE IN SHIP COSTS=-
Imagine the Centurion. Fast, sleek, capable of dogfighting and boosting to incredible speeds. It has been optimized for combat, and is on par with the Valkyrie in terms of maneuverability. Why is this thing so cheap??? I would propose that a more substantial division between combat fighters, bombers, and merchant vessels. Merchant vessels should have moderate armor, bad to moderate maneuverability, and light to moderate weapons coverage. They also should be fairly cheap, since their selling point is the empty space inside them (cargo bay). Much more expensive could be bombers, with a heavy weapons loadout and heavy armor. Even more expensive than that, should be fighters, which are nimble, fast, and deadly.
Sample prices:
Merchant Vessels
EC-88 (1 ion cannon, 6 cargo, 6000 HP): free
EC-88B (2 ion cannons, 8 cargo, 8,000 HP): 20,000 c
Atlas (2 weapon ports, 14 cargo, 10,000 HP): 45,000 c
Neutral Maurader (3 weapon ports, 20 cargo, 12,000 HP): 120,000 c
Courier/Smuggler ships
AE-454 (2 small, 8 cargo, 6,000 HP, current Vulture maneuv.): 45,000 c
Lightning Angel (1 smal 1 large, 8 cargo, 10,000 HP, current hornet maneuv.): 85,000 c
Bombers/heavy transports:
Wraith (3 weapon ports, 10 cargo, 14,000 HP): 60,000 c
Centuar (3 weapon ports, 34 cargo, 26,000 HP): 150,000 c
Serco Prometheus (4 weapon ports, 18 cargo, 22,000 HP): 200,000 c
Ragnarok (5 weapon ports, 16 cargo, 32,000 HP): 220,000 c
Fighters:
Centurion (1 weapon port, 2 cargo, 6,000 HP): 30,000 c
Vulture (2 weapon ports, 4 cargo, 8,000 HP): 50,000 c
Hornet (4 weapon ports, 5 cargo, 10,000 HP): 85,000 c
Itani Valkyrie (3 weapon ports, 3 cargo, 10,000 HP): 120,000 c.
These are all off the top of my head, but please don't say "wtf you upped the [ ] to [ ]." You seem my point, hopefully. Valk jocks will be much more hesitant to lose a 120k+ piece of equipment to the possibility of getting a kill. The larger cargo space will offset the merchant's vulnerability to pirates. That's my thought anyways.
/me looks off towards the community, "Who said newbies give up and leave without a word? This guy rocks!!"
I think I have a solution for the special ship problem. Yet I think the devs have thought of it.
------------
-=Building Ships (from scratch)=-
What would happen if [insert name of valk jock here] gets an unlucky barrel-roll and eats the rockets of an enemy. He returns to 18, hits buy ship, and quickly expects the Valkyrie to be available. But.... no!!! Valkyrie Status: "Not available." It seems that someone has neglected to do cargo runs to 18, so Station 18 is out of Valkyrie hulls.
Cool idea? You would need constant trade to keep ammo, repair bots, and hulls in stock at a station. Kinda like we have Wal-mart, K-mart, and whatnot. Not all of them have that CD you want, and you sure don't want to wait for it to come in. You go somewhere else. A place like station 11 would hold a fraction of the components that the home sectors or sector 9 could store. The consequences of this change would be far-reaching. A highly-trafficked station could add modular storage bays to hold more supplies. As it expanded, it could afford to hire the DSG or another guild for protection.
So, a rocket-rammer could mean big business. He goes through ships quickly? Some place has to supply them. But, oh, that brings me to another problem.
------------------------------
-=DIFFERENCE IN SHIP COSTS=-
Imagine the Centurion. Fast, sleek, capable of dogfighting and boosting to incredible speeds. It has been optimized for combat, and is on par with the Valkyrie in terms of maneuverability. Why is this thing so cheap??? I would propose that a more substantial division between combat fighters, bombers, and merchant vessels. Merchant vessels should have moderate armor, bad to moderate maneuverability, and light to moderate weapons coverage. They also should be fairly cheap, since their selling point is the empty space inside them (cargo bay). Much more expensive could be bombers, with a heavy weapons loadout and heavy armor. Even more expensive than that, should be fighters, which are nimble, fast, and deadly.
Sample prices:
Merchant Vessels
EC-88 (1 ion cannon, 6 cargo, 6000 HP): free
EC-88B (2 ion cannons, 8 cargo, 8,000 HP): 20,000 c
Atlas (2 weapon ports, 14 cargo, 10,000 HP): 45,000 c
Neutral Maurader (3 weapon ports, 20 cargo, 12,000 HP): 120,000 c
Courier/Smuggler ships
AE-454 (2 small, 8 cargo, 6,000 HP, current Vulture maneuv.): 45,000 c
Lightning Angel (1 smal 1 large, 8 cargo, 10,000 HP, current hornet maneuv.): 85,000 c
Bombers/heavy transports:
Wraith (3 weapon ports, 10 cargo, 14,000 HP): 60,000 c
Centuar (3 weapon ports, 34 cargo, 26,000 HP): 150,000 c
Serco Prometheus (4 weapon ports, 18 cargo, 22,000 HP): 200,000 c
Ragnarok (5 weapon ports, 16 cargo, 32,000 HP): 220,000 c
Fighters:
Centurion (1 weapon port, 2 cargo, 6,000 HP): 30,000 c
Vulture (2 weapon ports, 4 cargo, 8,000 HP): 50,000 c
Hornet (4 weapon ports, 5 cargo, 10,000 HP): 85,000 c
Itani Valkyrie (3 weapon ports, 3 cargo, 10,000 HP): 120,000 c.
These are all off the top of my head, but please don't say "wtf you upped the [ ] to [ ]." You seem my point, hopefully. Valk jocks will be much more hesitant to lose a 120k+ piece of equipment to the possibility of getting a kill. The larger cargo space will offset the merchant's vulnerability to pirates. That's my thought anyways.
1. Only allow maximum of 2 of the same weapon grouped on a ship.
2. Make special ships only available after proving your worth to your nation, or stealing some other nations special ship (missions)
3. Make it so you need a license to carry explosives on your ship unless your a pirate. If you fire them within limits of a populated area (station) Possible loss of license for blah amount of time. Same with rocket ramming, if you do it too much you lose your license for blah amount of time.
4. Make money as hard as it was to get pre 3.2, make special ships cost 250k that'll make someone think twice about ramming with it. You lose so many of a special ship, your nation loses trust in you, you lose rep points and the availability of blah special ship becomes smaller, you have to travel greater distances to get one. At a higher price as well.
Station nuke fix-After firing a weapon within 50 m of the station. You have to wait 10 seconds before docking after the weapon is fired. So you wanna nuke the station, go ahead, but you will die in the blast too.
Death consequences- I would like to see a skill system in vendetta which gives players who have played longer a small advantage because of their higher skills. So no n00b can't be the best by just starting out. They have to work to the top, this also fixes nation hopping, you have a maximum of 2 characters, you wanna switch nations, all your skills drop to 1 and you start all over again. When you die, there is a slight experience loss in all of your skills, if you die a lot you could decrease in skill.
Another idea, when the economy changes, make the availabilty of weapons differ between sectors. For example make each station have their own stockpile of weapons and ships. If everyone buys all of the ships/weapons you have to wait until a trader brings in a shipment of new weapons or you have to travel to another place that has them. Same goes with ammo, everyone uses flares, the station will run out quicker.
2. Make special ships only available after proving your worth to your nation, or stealing some other nations special ship (missions)
3. Make it so you need a license to carry explosives on your ship unless your a pirate. If you fire them within limits of a populated area (station) Possible loss of license for blah amount of time. Same with rocket ramming, if you do it too much you lose your license for blah amount of time.
4. Make money as hard as it was to get pre 3.2, make special ships cost 250k that'll make someone think twice about ramming with it. You lose so many of a special ship, your nation loses trust in you, you lose rep points and the availability of blah special ship becomes smaller, you have to travel greater distances to get one. At a higher price as well.
Station nuke fix-After firing a weapon within 50 m of the station. You have to wait 10 seconds before docking after the weapon is fired. So you wanna nuke the station, go ahead, but you will die in the blast too.
Death consequences- I would like to see a skill system in vendetta which gives players who have played longer a small advantage because of their higher skills. So no n00b can't be the best by just starting out. They have to work to the top, this also fixes nation hopping, you have a maximum of 2 characters, you wanna switch nations, all your skills drop to 1 and you start all over again. When you die, there is a slight experience loss in all of your skills, if you die a lot you could decrease in skill.
Another idea, when the economy changes, make the availabilty of weapons differ between sectors. For example make each station have their own stockpile of weapons and ships. If everyone buys all of the ships/weapons you have to wait until a trader brings in a shipment of new weapons or you have to travel to another place that has them. Same goes with ammo, everyone uses flares, the station will run out quicker.
/me reads nethershaw's post
/me picks his jaw up off the ground
I agree with everything you just said... Oh yeah, and welcome to the community! :)
Anywho... Phoenix, I like your idea of a docking delay for when weapons have been fired. However, there's one problem. What if the person flies out to 500m and then launches it? They'll be back in time to dock before the nuke goes off. To compensate, here's my suggestion: kamikaze drones. Make warheads targetable (*ahem*), and create an AI in a very fast ship (faster than the valk), with almost no armor, no weapons, and that only targets warheads. Give the station about 20 of them, guarding it at all times, and make them ram any missile or rocket within a certain range (a few hundred meters).
/me picks his jaw up off the ground
I agree with everything you just said... Oh yeah, and welcome to the community! :)
Anywho... Phoenix, I like your idea of a docking delay for when weapons have been fired. However, there's one problem. What if the person flies out to 500m and then launches it? They'll be back in time to dock before the nuke goes off. To compensate, here's my suggestion: kamikaze drones. Make warheads targetable (*ahem*), and create an AI in a very fast ship (faster than the valk), with almost no armor, no weapons, and that only targets warheads. Give the station about 20 of them, guarding it at all times, and make them ram any missile or rocket within a certain range (a few hundred meters).
Well, stations will have mounted turrets that shoot down warheads within a certain proximity, but my suggestion was to fix those people that fire a nuke against the inside of the dock, and then dock before it explodes. They fire inside the dock, they try to dock, they get a message saying, You must wait 10 seconds before docking after firing a nuclear warhead. Boom their dead.
/me reads Nethershaw's post
/me reads it again
/me opens his mouth
/me closes his mouth
/me opens his mouth
/me closes his mouth
Ughhh....
All I can say, is that you're all thinking too damn small.
Rocket-ramming you say?
What makes you think that the valk will even be in the final version?
I suggest you read this, http://www.guildsoftware.com/vendetta.html , compare it to what you have now, take the difference, multiply by 4/5.
That is what I see as being the features that will never see the test.
Think bigger.
/me reads it again
/me opens his mouth
/me closes his mouth
/me opens his mouth
/me closes his mouth
Ughhh....
All I can say, is that you're all thinking too damn small.
Rocket-ramming you say?
What makes you think that the valk will even be in the final version?
I suggest you read this, http://www.guildsoftware.com/vendetta.html , compare it to what you have now, take the difference, multiply by 4/5.
That is what I see as being the features that will never see the test.
Think bigger.
hm...
phoenix, how do you define a pirate? and that "pirate" person, how will it be able to access high explosives (nuke, flares)?
that must be limited too to discourage piracy. there can be only so many pirates in a community (determined by the number of traders).
tweak to your post:
ｫ3. Make it so you need a license to carry explosives on your ship unless your a pirate. If you fire them within limits of a populated area (station) Possible loss of license for blah amount of time. Same with rocket ramming, if you do it too much you lose your license for blah amount of time.ｻ
addendum: if you're a pirate, you can only buy ammunition at defended places (stations that have defensesand shoot at everyone), like sector 15 and 18 in the current release.
of course, those would have limited supplies too, but will run out of it less often due to "shady connections to the navies" and/or diligent yet unscrupulous traders who can make a pretty penny off weapon runs (hrm... another reference to EV:Nova... there you can make Bio-Weapon cargo runs that are highly profitable. problem is: if you do that too often, other nations will get to hate you and won't let you allow to land or dock. so, no kestrel funding by supporting interstellar wars :D).
phoenix, how do you define a pirate? and that "pirate" person, how will it be able to access high explosives (nuke, flares)?
that must be limited too to discourage piracy. there can be only so many pirates in a community (determined by the number of traders).
tweak to your post:
ｫ3. Make it so you need a license to carry explosives on your ship unless your a pirate. If you fire them within limits of a populated area (station) Possible loss of license for blah amount of time. Same with rocket ramming, if you do it too much you lose your license for blah amount of time.ｻ
addendum: if you're a pirate, you can only buy ammunition at defended places (stations that have defensesand shoot at everyone), like sector 15 and 18 in the current release.
of course, those would have limited supplies too, but will run out of it less often due to "shady connections to the navies" and/or diligent yet unscrupulous traders who can make a pretty penny off weapon runs (hrm... another reference to EV:Nova... there you can make Bio-Weapon cargo runs that are highly profitable. problem is: if you do that too often, other nations will get to hate you and won't let you allow to land or dock. so, no kestrel funding by supporting interstellar wars :D).
Pirate, outcast, not with any nation. Steals weapons and cargo by boarding disabled enemy ships. Of course there are limits on piracy, a lot of players will hunt you, you won't be able to dock at government owned stations unless you bribe them with high amounts of cash. You have to travel further to get stuff etc.
...wow. I didn't expect my post to cause such discussion. In fact, I had thought it a little presumptuous when I had first written it. Though now there are a few issues I need to deal with. Three people have raised counterpoints. I'll address those.
First, there are a few clarifications that I need to make with respect to ambiguities within my first post. I, on more than one occasion, referred to the ideal of a "well-constructed game" in my arguments; however, I neglected to add the qualifier "of this genre." While Vendetta is presently classified (broadly and from what I gather tentatively) as an FPS, its RPG qualities necessitate a certain degree of difference from the traditional frag-and-respawn game model. Strategy and economy play big roles. Celebrim's first counterpoint was directly related to this. I happen to enjoy games such as Doom and Team Fortress. But those are constructed on a different model.
Celebrim's second counter-arugment is suggesting that I have been ambiguous on two sets of ideas: one, my position on advanced/superior technologies and weapons; two, that I believe the present state of the game is representative of the final product. For the first, I would like to refer you all to one of my opening statements:
"[I want to address] not the vessels or the weapons or even the tactics themselves, but the game mechanics."
The point of my little rant up there was _consequences_. Note that the title of this thread is also "Player Consequences." That said, I want to make a clear distinction between what I see as a material and a tactical advantage. The possession of a Valkyrie, for example, is a significant material advantage. You have something better than the majority of what is out there. I have said that I do not disagree with this. But in order for the mechanics of the game to deliver an enjoyable experience, there must be a _tactical_ advantage (one not derived from the possession of any single weapon or vessel) available to check against it. I.e., there should be ways (not necessarily easy ones, because if you have a superweapon that can easily be destroyed, it's not much of a superweapon) to threaten and mitigate such a ship's or weapon's use within the gameplay itself. This, I hope, clears up any semblance I might have given of having a double-standard.
As for number two, I understand (and have repeated) that I understand this is a test. Celebrim included one of those repetitions in a quote. This means I am aware of the fact that present conditions do not necessarily represent final product. However, if something can be put in the game once, it can be put in the game again if the devs know nothing is wrong with it. Furthermore, I had hoped to speak of larger trends (which need to be addressed on a long-term scale) rather than minute particulars (which would be addressed on a short-term scale).
On we go to the other guys.
Renegade, I appreciate the effort, but who are you disagreeing with (if anyone)? You raise many valid points, but none directly refute mine. Though I do have one thing to say. You mentioned that "successful tactics are used constantly." Yes, they are. The problem is when there is a very small number of successful tactics. :]
Genka: Did read. Please refer to my counter-counter-point three paragraphs up (the last thing I dealt with from Celebrim's post).
Guys, I'm enjoying the feedback, but those of you who are coming here to tell me that my points aren't valid because they're "too short-term" or "not in the big picture" I think are missing something. The things I'm describing and others are discussing are important because they exist. Which means they are on the minds of the devs. Which means we need to talk about them. Which is what I'm trying to do. Nothing more. If they get rid of even the vast majority of everything in the game right now, this thread and others like it will have served their purpose in that they brought attention to important elements of the game that one way or another needed correction.
Everybody else, carry on. Thanks for the warm welcome. :]
First, there are a few clarifications that I need to make with respect to ambiguities within my first post. I, on more than one occasion, referred to the ideal of a "well-constructed game" in my arguments; however, I neglected to add the qualifier "of this genre." While Vendetta is presently classified (broadly and from what I gather tentatively) as an FPS, its RPG qualities necessitate a certain degree of difference from the traditional frag-and-respawn game model. Strategy and economy play big roles. Celebrim's first counterpoint was directly related to this. I happen to enjoy games such as Doom and Team Fortress. But those are constructed on a different model.
Celebrim's second counter-arugment is suggesting that I have been ambiguous on two sets of ideas: one, my position on advanced/superior technologies and weapons; two, that I believe the present state of the game is representative of the final product. For the first, I would like to refer you all to one of my opening statements:
"[I want to address] not the vessels or the weapons or even the tactics themselves, but the game mechanics."
The point of my little rant up there was _consequences_. Note that the title of this thread is also "Player Consequences." That said, I want to make a clear distinction between what I see as a material and a tactical advantage. The possession of a Valkyrie, for example, is a significant material advantage. You have something better than the majority of what is out there. I have said that I do not disagree with this. But in order for the mechanics of the game to deliver an enjoyable experience, there must be a _tactical_ advantage (one not derived from the possession of any single weapon or vessel) available to check against it. I.e., there should be ways (not necessarily easy ones, because if you have a superweapon that can easily be destroyed, it's not much of a superweapon) to threaten and mitigate such a ship's or weapon's use within the gameplay itself. This, I hope, clears up any semblance I might have given of having a double-standard.
As for number two, I understand (and have repeated) that I understand this is a test. Celebrim included one of those repetitions in a quote. This means I am aware of the fact that present conditions do not necessarily represent final product. However, if something can be put in the game once, it can be put in the game again if the devs know nothing is wrong with it. Furthermore, I had hoped to speak of larger trends (which need to be addressed on a long-term scale) rather than minute particulars (which would be addressed on a short-term scale).
On we go to the other guys.
Renegade, I appreciate the effort, but who are you disagreeing with (if anyone)? You raise many valid points, but none directly refute mine. Though I do have one thing to say. You mentioned that "successful tactics are used constantly." Yes, they are. The problem is when there is a very small number of successful tactics. :]
Genka: Did read. Please refer to my counter-counter-point three paragraphs up (the last thing I dealt with from Celebrim's post).
Guys, I'm enjoying the feedback, but those of you who are coming here to tell me that my points aren't valid because they're "too short-term" or "not in the big picture" I think are missing something. The things I'm describing and others are discussing are important because they exist. Which means they are on the minds of the devs. Which means we need to talk about them. Which is what I'm trying to do. Nothing more. If they get rid of even the vast majority of everything in the game right now, this thread and others like it will have served their purpose in that they brought attention to important elements of the game that one way or another needed correction.
Everybody else, carry on. Thanks for the warm welcome. :]
Nethershaw: You realize of course I'm pretty much obligated to flame you a little bit, right? :)
Seriously though, it is nice to see a new person making thoughtful posts. (It's also nice to have a poster to disagree with whose writing is muscular enough to force me to stretch myself.)
You really have to understand a little of the Vendetta test's history though. While the game is morphing into an RPG as a long term goal, the test originally started as a straight forward FPS complete with powerups and so forth. Alot of what you are complaining about with regards to the frag-and-respawn game model is a legacy of the tests roots rather than an indication of the game designer's intentions. The RPG dressing which has been superficially draped over the FPS isn't indicative of the final intentions either, but rather simply a means of testing increasingly complex data structures intended to support the final game.
I think its a little bit ambigious to try to finely distinguish between material advantages and tactical advantages. The available and necessary tactics are tightly entwined with with technology of war. To speak of a tactical advantage not tied to technology, you have to speak of 'holding the high ground' or 'local concentration of force' or other procedural tactical decisions which might fall under the general ruberic of 'good tactics' - or in terms of the game 'player skill'. But that doesn't appear to be what you are talking about, or if it is, there doesn't appear to me to be anyway to control for the fact that a player with an 'advanced' weapon which is absolutely better than its competitors need only display a similar degree of skill to defeat attackers using inferior weapons. If its not what you are talking about, then you must be referring more to the idea of 'rock-paper-scissors' which is so promenate in RTS design. While that's a good idea, and you can see some of that thinking in my 'gizmo design' on the toys thread, it doesn't of necessity balance inherently unbalanced things.
Two things we definately agree on. First, I agree that its ok to have a range of quality in equipment. That's almost inherent in the design of any RPG. But, and I think you will agree with this, having a range of quality in equipment should not prevent you from expressing your own particular tactical preferences in a way that capable of achieving success - what you call 'tactical divergence'. The knife fighters shouldn't be able to overwhelm the saber dancers, and the sluggers shouldn't be to overwhelm the snipers, and vica versa.
Secondly, I agree that nerfing things is not usually a good solution. The community I think gets too focused on the abuse of whatever weapons package is currently optimal, with the result that the only attempts at balance seem to be nerfing something until its unusable (e.g. the Rail Gun) or else balancing weapons by creating 'tactical convergence' (e.g. the fact that the tachyon, gauss, and graviton all go 180m/s now). There is much less focus placed on trying to make alternative tactical packages competitive with those already known to 'work'.
Finally, its ok to discuss 'big picture' ideas, but I'm not sure its very helpful. I think the devs already have pretty solid ideas about what the big picture is going to be, and I think vague and unspecific discussion of the 'big picture' is either simply going to lead to dead end discussions of some game - but not the game the devs are planning on making - or simply a vague rehashing of what the devs have already said that they have decided on. The biggest problem I have with your post is not the little nit picky details, but the fact that I don't think it discusses anything the devs don't already know and haven't considered in far more detail than we who are not daily involved in the production could have considered them. You post may be well written, and witty, and your reasoning by and large correct, but I'm not convinced that your post is relevent or illuminating.
Boiled down I read your post as: "I think things which are widely regarded as good are good, and although I know that the devs have said that they plan to adopt these things, I nevertheless want to reiterate that it would be good if they were adopted."
Great. Me too. But do you care to get a little more specific than that?
Seriously though, it is nice to see a new person making thoughtful posts. (It's also nice to have a poster to disagree with whose writing is muscular enough to force me to stretch myself.)
You really have to understand a little of the Vendetta test's history though. While the game is morphing into an RPG as a long term goal, the test originally started as a straight forward FPS complete with powerups and so forth. Alot of what you are complaining about with regards to the frag-and-respawn game model is a legacy of the tests roots rather than an indication of the game designer's intentions. The RPG dressing which has been superficially draped over the FPS isn't indicative of the final intentions either, but rather simply a means of testing increasingly complex data structures intended to support the final game.
I think its a little bit ambigious to try to finely distinguish between material advantages and tactical advantages. The available and necessary tactics are tightly entwined with with technology of war. To speak of a tactical advantage not tied to technology, you have to speak of 'holding the high ground' or 'local concentration of force' or other procedural tactical decisions which might fall under the general ruberic of 'good tactics' - or in terms of the game 'player skill'. But that doesn't appear to be what you are talking about, or if it is, there doesn't appear to me to be anyway to control for the fact that a player with an 'advanced' weapon which is absolutely better than its competitors need only display a similar degree of skill to defeat attackers using inferior weapons. If its not what you are talking about, then you must be referring more to the idea of 'rock-paper-scissors' which is so promenate in RTS design. While that's a good idea, and you can see some of that thinking in my 'gizmo design' on the toys thread, it doesn't of necessity balance inherently unbalanced things.
Two things we definately agree on. First, I agree that its ok to have a range of quality in equipment. That's almost inherent in the design of any RPG. But, and I think you will agree with this, having a range of quality in equipment should not prevent you from expressing your own particular tactical preferences in a way that capable of achieving success - what you call 'tactical divergence'. The knife fighters shouldn't be able to overwhelm the saber dancers, and the sluggers shouldn't be to overwhelm the snipers, and vica versa.
Secondly, I agree that nerfing things is not usually a good solution. The community I think gets too focused on the abuse of whatever weapons package is currently optimal, with the result that the only attempts at balance seem to be nerfing something until its unusable (e.g. the Rail Gun) or else balancing weapons by creating 'tactical convergence' (e.g. the fact that the tachyon, gauss, and graviton all go 180m/s now). There is much less focus placed on trying to make alternative tactical packages competitive with those already known to 'work'.
Finally, its ok to discuss 'big picture' ideas, but I'm not sure its very helpful. I think the devs already have pretty solid ideas about what the big picture is going to be, and I think vague and unspecific discussion of the 'big picture' is either simply going to lead to dead end discussions of some game - but not the game the devs are planning on making - or simply a vague rehashing of what the devs have already said that they have decided on. The biggest problem I have with your post is not the little nit picky details, but the fact that I don't think it discusses anything the devs don't already know and haven't considered in far more detail than we who are not daily involved in the production could have considered them. You post may be well written, and witty, and your reasoning by and large correct, but I'm not convinced that your post is relevent or illuminating.
Boiled down I read your post as: "I think things which are widely regarded as good are good, and although I know that the devs have said that they plan to adopt these things, I nevertheless want to reiterate that it would be good if they were adopted."
Great. Me too. But do you care to get a little more specific than that?
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
Secondly, I agree that nerfing things is not usually a good solution. The community I think gets too focused on the abuse of whatever weapons package is currently optimal, with the result that the only attempts at balance seem to be nerfing something until its unusable (e.g. the Rail Gun) or else balancing weapons by creating 'tactical convergence' (e.g. the fact that the tachyon, gauss, and graviton all go 180m/s now). There is much less focus placed on trying to make alternative tactical packages competitive with those already known to 'work'.
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
i partially agree. nerphing weapons is no solution to problems-- long-term.
but in short terms, i think it would help having this or that tweaked a little bit so people can get on with testing (yes, testing!). when you have to run every 2.67 seconds because of some madman with triple SPNKRs and a ship fast enough to make mr. gonzalez jealous, you can't really try out what graphics setting produced this special bug and whatnot.
i realize that nerphing things short-term might lead to that regarded as normal and kept in the overall design, but i think the devs are very well aware of what needs to be done in that regard.
Secondly, I agree that nerfing things is not usually a good solution. The community I think gets too focused on the abuse of whatever weapons package is currently optimal, with the result that the only attempts at balance seem to be nerfing something until its unusable (e.g. the Rail Gun) or else balancing weapons by creating 'tactical convergence' (e.g. the fact that the tachyon, gauss, and graviton all go 180m/s now). There is much less focus placed on trying to make alternative tactical packages competitive with those already known to 'work'.
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
i partially agree. nerphing weapons is no solution to problems-- long-term.
but in short terms, i think it would help having this or that tweaked a little bit so people can get on with testing (yes, testing!). when you have to run every 2.67 seconds because of some madman with triple SPNKRs and a ship fast enough to make mr. gonzalez jealous, you can't really try out what graphics setting produced this special bug and whatnot.
i realize that nerphing things short-term might lead to that regarded as normal and kept in the overall design, but i think the devs are very well aware of what needs to be done in that regard.
I accept that the valk is advanced technology. I accept that its supposed to be superior to all other regular ships. But the Prometheus is nowhere near as uber as the Valkyrie, so call me biased, but i think that needs to be changed if the specials are to become rarer.
The valk is a little too special. Kastin has been roaming around 9 triple-flaring everyone randomly. None of my ships (all non-special) could do more than set him on fire. The only time I really got him off my back was with my tri-gemini + dual-swarm ship, which kept him occupied for some time.