Forums » Suggestions
I've been away for a few years and I was wondering has the average combat flyer caught up with the antiquated Apache helicopter when it come to aiming at a target or do you still aim at your targets like your a world war one biplane?
"Stoneage space combat" What the hell are you talking about? Not biplanes or Apaches never shot at each other with plasma guns, repair modules, missiles with a kilometer and a half range and are fired 8 at time, jump engines that make our ships travel millions of miles instantly, massive capitol ships, and they definitely didn't fight in space like we do in Vendetta.
He's specifically talking about the aiming mechanics, Snake. Everything you just ranted about is irrelevant.
Though I'm still not sure what his actual complaint is. WWI aircraft had neither lead indicators nor auto-tracking, and we've had both for a pretty long time. I don't really know anything about what the Apache has, other than fun stuff like night-vision that isn't relevant to VO.
Maybe he just never learned how to use the targeting buttons and thought we just had to guesstimate.
Though I'm still not sure what his actual complaint is. WWI aircraft had neither lead indicators nor auto-tracking, and we've had both for a pretty long time. I don't really know anything about what the Apache has, other than fun stuff like night-vision that isn't relevant to VO.
Maybe he just never learned how to use the targeting buttons and thought we just had to guesstimate.
Probably because modern air combat is boring.
still pretty much like a biplane, you haven't missed much
Sorry to here that, even microcrap had non-fixed forward guns (ie Freelancer) while a lot of vendetta is good, and I sorely wanted to support it when I first heard about the fact it has a linux native client. However, I see too little ingenuity in practice. I fail to understand reasoning for ship design in games as most look like they are planes or like rockets when space has no air for wings to maneuver with or wind resistance to defeat. The babylon5 Valkyrie is more suitable for space combat then any I remember seeing in vendetta.
to snake, in an Apache you look at your target and fire. In vendetta you have to point the whole craft straight at them. hence WWI
"planes or like rockets when space has no air for wings to maneuver with or wind resistance to defeat."
The reason for wings is to create a longer lever arm, which creates more torque. Also, a lot of the designs were build from old terrestrial craft.
And that's not really true. We still have homing missiles, and a biplane couldn't fly backwards or stay still in midair.
The reason for wings is to create a longer lever arm, which creates more torque. Also, a lot of the designs were build from old terrestrial craft.
And that's not really true. We still have homing missiles, and a biplane couldn't fly backwards or stay still in midair.
"In vendetta you have to point the whole craft straight at them."
Incorrect. As I said above, we do have autotracking. How much varies from weapon to weapon. Railguns and cheap blasters have almost none. Gauss cannon (my weapon of choice) have enough that you only need to aim within 10-20 degrees of your target. Gatling Turrets have something like a 120 degree cone. (Note: despite the "turret" in their name, gats are technically just another large-port weapon, not a turret-port weapon.)
We also have some ships that have proper turret ports, where you can put weapons that have a full hemisphere of rotation in addition to whatever auto-aim the particular weapon features. The only catch with those is that the devs don't seem to like the idea of letting us automate those, so they have to be manned by another human gunner.
Incorrect. As I said above, we do have autotracking. How much varies from weapon to weapon. Railguns and cheap blasters have almost none. Gauss cannon (my weapon of choice) have enough that you only need to aim within 10-20 degrees of your target. Gatling Turrets have something like a 120 degree cone. (Note: despite the "turret" in their name, gats are technically just another large-port weapon, not a turret-port weapon.)
We also have some ships that have proper turret ports, where you can put weapons that have a full hemisphere of rotation in addition to whatever auto-aim the particular weapon features. The only catch with those is that the devs don't seem to like the idea of letting us automate those, so they have to be manned by another human gunner.
I prefer pointing my craft at someone to shoot them against spamming missiles with a key or doing a slow flyby while my automated death cannons track my foe.
I'm not exactly sure what the suggestion is here.
While it can be fun, realism in a game isn't necessarily a good thing, and particularly not for a game like Vendetta. Once you get into PvP for a furball or two you'll see the reason. In the old F-18 simulator I used to play, air to air engagements usually took place beyond visual range without enemy fighters ever seeing each other before getting shot down. Very rarely would there be an actual dogfight; the "gameplay" was all about detecting the enemy first, and making sure he really was an enemy. Very realistic, but much less fun than the twitch gameplay in Vendetta.
To echo Pizzasgood: we already can detect enemy ships that are in-range of our active sensors instantly and in a full 360 (all-aspect) sphere, lock on and fire seekers from any aspect. Guns have articulated cones of fire, too. Some pilots know how to "jink" this cone of fire, so in certain cases it's actually more effective not to use it.
In any case, it makes for a great PvP experience, which is more important from a game design perspective.
Regarding "wings"; I think some of the craft we have will eventually be capable of atmospheric flight.
While it can be fun, realism in a game isn't necessarily a good thing, and particularly not for a game like Vendetta. Once you get into PvP for a furball or two you'll see the reason. In the old F-18 simulator I used to play, air to air engagements usually took place beyond visual range without enemy fighters ever seeing each other before getting shot down. Very rarely would there be an actual dogfight; the "gameplay" was all about detecting the enemy first, and making sure he really was an enemy. Very realistic, but much less fun than the twitch gameplay in Vendetta.
To echo Pizzasgood: we already can detect enemy ships that are in-range of our active sensors instantly and in a full 360 (all-aspect) sphere, lock on and fire seekers from any aspect. Guns have articulated cones of fire, too. Some pilots know how to "jink" this cone of fire, so in certain cases it's actually more effective not to use it.
In any case, it makes for a great PvP experience, which is more important from a game design perspective.
Regarding "wings"; I think some of the craft we have will eventually be capable of atmospheric flight.
What the hell is this thread? it isn't a suggestion :S
I just realized it was in the wrong forum, also.
Even if VO had better looking ships, it still lacks a whole of other stuff. Dev time is almost entirely consumed by platform expansion and subsequent bug fixes, and it has been that way for about 2 years at least. If I were you Rhunteen, I'd check back a couple months after the iPad release and see if they've moved onto improving/updating the game.
It's a pretty good guess that unless they see a huge upswing in income, VO will be more or less the same from here on out.
It's a pretty good guess that unless they see a huge upswing in income, VO will be more or less the same from here on out.
It's a pretty good guess that unless they see a huge upswing in income, VO will be more or less the same from here on out.
Eh, what? It's not like the PCC has done anything recently, and aside from the platform expansion the devs haven't managed anything within the past couple years like creating a new mission system, unique high-profit trade routes, new graphics, balanced manufacturing, mobile social networking support, a new camera mode, expanded flight capability, mutual faction exclusivity, and player-constructed cap ships...
Eh, what? It's not like the PCC has done anything recently, and aside from the platform expansion the devs haven't managed anything within the past couple years like creating a new mission system, unique high-profit trade routes, new graphics, balanced manufacturing, mobile social networking support, a new camera mode, expanded flight capability, mutual faction exclusivity, and player-constructed cap ships...
I like the way combat happens in VO. It's a nice blend between realism and fun.
/2 cents
/2 cents
new mission system - whoopdefriggindoo, new system but same old missions. Ok, some new missions, but I never do missions, so, whoopdefriggindoo.
unique high-profit trade routes - whoopdefriggindoo, who cares about trade routes when the economy is still broken
new graphics -whoopdefriggindoo, GS is training a graphics artist to repaint VO. We don't want a new paint job, we want NEW content.
balanced manufacturing - i never manufacture so I don't care about this, nor do I understand what it means
mobile social networking support - ?
a new camera mode - lol
expanded flight capability - how so? does this translate into advanced joystick support?
mutual faction exclusivity - this update made sense, but still very little to change the overall game experience
and player-constructed cap ships... whoopdefriggindoo, lets spend our entire lives flying slow ass ships through space to build the end-game machine
unique high-profit trade routes - whoopdefriggindoo, who cares about trade routes when the economy is still broken
new graphics -whoopdefriggindoo, GS is training a graphics artist to repaint VO. We don't want a new paint job, we want NEW content.
balanced manufacturing - i never manufacture so I don't care about this, nor do I understand what it means
mobile social networking support - ?
a new camera mode - lol
expanded flight capability - how so? does this translate into advanced joystick support?
mutual faction exclusivity - this update made sense, but still very little to change the overall game experience
and player-constructed cap ships... whoopdefriggindoo, lets spend our entire lives flying slow ass ships through space to build the end-game machine
expanded flight capability - how so?
Until VO 1.8.206, it was impossible to back up while under Flight Assist.
Until VO 1.8.206, it was impossible to back up while under Flight Assist.
I'd call that more of a bug fix...that's a bit like saying "we added a reverse gear; you no longer have to put it into neutral and push it backwards".
"I'd call that more of a bug fix...that's a bit like saying "we added a reverse gear; you no longer have to put it into neutral and push it backwards".
Hey! I liked my first car !
OnT: PhaserLight and Terran are right, realism is less important than gameplay as long as it does not block immersion. I will give some in-game reasoning for mostly fixed guns, but the important thing is that it is more fun to play this way. The old WWI and II fighter games were exciting and fun to play (red baron, battle of britan etc), and most realistic modern fighter combat games simply aren't.
I agree that the devs' focus on platform expansion is keeping back some really needed updates, esp non-graphics fixes like the faction system and the economy. But it seems to be a bit of a catch-22 as they can't fix the game without income, and the mobile market seems a better source of income atm especially since VO is top of the line for the mobile market but not really for the windows/console market, especially not in terms of graphics and immediate immersion/addiction.
In-game reasoning for front-shooting weapons: a serco vulture is 3800 kg,; two neutron blasters mk2 are 1200kg. Thus, the mass of the guns is about 25% of the total ship. If we assume that most of this mass has to be pointed in the direction of shooting, creating a turret (freely rotating gun platform) for 25% of the ship's mass would (a) add significant mass and profile, and (b) if you rotate 25% of mass one way, the rest of the ship has to rotate the other way or expand thrust to counter it, reducing possibility for dodge and free flight. Moreover, all ships are designed to have the smallest profile in the front (which makes sense, you don't want to make a balloon-shaped ship that is easy to hit on all sides, you try to make it assymetrical and use that to your advantage). Thus, instead of rotating 25% of the mass it makes more sense to rotate the other 75% as well if that means smaller exposure, less overall mass and less things that are exposed outside the armor shell.
This reasoning does not hold for bigger ships, hence the turrets on large traders and capships. You could say that it would make more sense for ships like proms and rags to also have turrets rather than fixed weapons, but the ship mass : weapon mass are even more lopsided: a ragnarok is 16,000kg and 2 gem + 3 swarm is 8700; a skyprom is 10,000kg and 2 sunflars and a gatt turret is 4000 kgs.
So, the story is that the shipbuilders in VO became extremely good at making very light crafts with very strong armor (a skyprom has only double the weight of a big SUV and not even 20% of the weight of a modern battle tank) This creates the need to make extremely powerful weaponry to pierce that armor, which is done at the expense of significant weight compared to the hull and engine. This makes turrets impractical and undesirable for fighter ships.
Hey! I liked my first car !
OnT: PhaserLight and Terran are right, realism is less important than gameplay as long as it does not block immersion. I will give some in-game reasoning for mostly fixed guns, but the important thing is that it is more fun to play this way. The old WWI and II fighter games were exciting and fun to play (red baron, battle of britan etc), and most realistic modern fighter combat games simply aren't.
I agree that the devs' focus on platform expansion is keeping back some really needed updates, esp non-graphics fixes like the faction system and the economy. But it seems to be a bit of a catch-22 as they can't fix the game without income, and the mobile market seems a better source of income atm especially since VO is top of the line for the mobile market but not really for the windows/console market, especially not in terms of graphics and immediate immersion/addiction.
In-game reasoning for front-shooting weapons: a serco vulture is 3800 kg,; two neutron blasters mk2 are 1200kg. Thus, the mass of the guns is about 25% of the total ship. If we assume that most of this mass has to be pointed in the direction of shooting, creating a turret (freely rotating gun platform) for 25% of the ship's mass would (a) add significant mass and profile, and (b) if you rotate 25% of mass one way, the rest of the ship has to rotate the other way or expand thrust to counter it, reducing possibility for dodge and free flight. Moreover, all ships are designed to have the smallest profile in the front (which makes sense, you don't want to make a balloon-shaped ship that is easy to hit on all sides, you try to make it assymetrical and use that to your advantage). Thus, instead of rotating 25% of the mass it makes more sense to rotate the other 75% as well if that means smaller exposure, less overall mass and less things that are exposed outside the armor shell.
This reasoning does not hold for bigger ships, hence the turrets on large traders and capships. You could say that it would make more sense for ships like proms and rags to also have turrets rather than fixed weapons, but the ship mass : weapon mass are even more lopsided: a ragnarok is 16,000kg and 2 gem + 3 swarm is 8700; a skyprom is 10,000kg and 2 sunflars and a gatt turret is 4000 kgs.
So, the story is that the shipbuilders in VO became extremely good at making very light crafts with very strong armor (a skyprom has only double the weight of a big SUV and not even 20% of the weight of a modern battle tank) This creates the need to make extremely powerful weaponry to pierce that armor, which is done at the expense of significant weight compared to the hull and engine. This makes turrets impractical and undesirable for fighter ships.