Forums » Suggestions
Fair enough inc.
people should be encouraged to undock from their capital ship and defend it from lighter fighters, bombers are pretty easy to take out with rails, the best part of VO is the space quake nature of it. If people want to fly around in larger ships that are immune to smaller ships they can always play eve.
How about people should be encouraged to play the way they want to play.
[edited to conform with forum policies. Direct comments to the suggestion, not individuals. -W]
( so then it’s ok to say “play my way or go play X”?. -Wash- )
[edited to conform with forum policies. Direct comments to the suggestion, not individuals. -W]
( so then it’s ok to say “play my way or go play X”?. -Wash- )
I AGREE WITH PEYTROS (is that better whislter? jfc)
Heini doesn't seem to realize what he's suggesting is basically that capships get below 10 shots to defend themselves before we bottom out and can't fire for a small bit. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the fact capital ships don't have a dedicated weapon to defending against ships that get close enough to stay in the capital ships blind spots. I'm all for capital ships having weaknesses, and trade offs. But what I'm not for is making them sitting ducks. Gameplay wise no one would fire their turrets in a capital ship if they'd lose all their power in like 5-8 shots.
The recharge rate and energy cost could be changed to make it more balanced. I just want that a cap ship with 0 energy can't shoot, just like any other ship in the game. Swarms could perhaps use ammo instead of energy.
Soo, we're supposed to be openly discussing game balance ideas here. That fundamentally means changing how it's possible to play the game, so it definitely can't be simply rolled into "play the game however you want", although I understand the sentiment behind that statement..
Speaking of which, I also have no interest in people saying "Play things like X, or go play EVE". That is unhelpful, and frankly arrogant. Peytros doesn't get to claim what the "best part of VO" is, only what he happens to like.
I've never personally been into mining. Oh, I designed and integrated it, but I never thought much of it beyond a necessary mechanic to power other systems (economics, trade, etc). But once we added it in 2005, we had all these "hard-core miners" show up. There was no crafting, no meaningful sale of rare ores or any other real value to mining back then. But some people would clearly play the game just to mine, they told me they found it "relaxing". Hey.. fantastic, whatever makes people happy. It's not for me to judge what gameplay people might enjoy.
If it isn't for me to judge, it isn't for anyone else to judge either. There are a lot of ways to play VO. That's the whole point of a sandbox MMO.
The only certainty of gameplay change is that someone is probably going to be upset about something. But, the only way that I listen to player input is if it isn't all irrational bitching and complaining, and people arguing from their own narrow perspective. The Suggestions that are taken the most seriously tend to be those that integrate many different play-styles and feedback to offer a balanced possibility.
VO is a concept in motion. The game I am currently developing is not the game it is today. It's not the game it was in 2006. Don't get me wrong, it has elements of all of the above (hopefully the best of them), and new concepts as well. But it will always be something new, something evolved. I'm always looking forward, and that has always been the way things work here. I always think it's possibly to take the best of what we've had and expand it further.
Balance may roll from one side to another and then back again, but generally the only sacred cows are "twitch combat" and "(mostly) no safe place", so the rest of it is always on the table.
By way of a reminder, we're working towards a title with an expanded galaxy, conquerable territory, player-owned stations and capital ships, potentially with hired captains (and convoy escorts), player-posted trade routes to feed manufacturing, and a lot of other concepts..
This is not simply "Space Quake in B8". I'm fine with capship risk. I can advocate for piracy and PvP, along with trading at the same time. I love finding new reasons to push people together and create interesting situations (including combative ones). But don't limit your thinking purely on a vision of the game from the past.
We can value capital ships, and the time it takes to build them. We can confer great advantages to the people who own them, and we can still have people battling in fighters. Or playing the game solo. Or whatever else. I'm interested in game mechanics that result in reasonably balanced systems.
If you can't integrate the viability of play-styles you don't personally represent, into your thinking, then Suggestions is probably Not For You.
Keep it positive and productive, focus on debating the ideas and not the individuals (nor discounting the play-styles).
Speaking of which, I also have no interest in people saying "Play things like X, or go play EVE". That is unhelpful, and frankly arrogant. Peytros doesn't get to claim what the "best part of VO" is, only what he happens to like.
I've never personally been into mining. Oh, I designed and integrated it, but I never thought much of it beyond a necessary mechanic to power other systems (economics, trade, etc). But once we added it in 2005, we had all these "hard-core miners" show up. There was no crafting, no meaningful sale of rare ores or any other real value to mining back then. But some people would clearly play the game just to mine, they told me they found it "relaxing". Hey.. fantastic, whatever makes people happy. It's not for me to judge what gameplay people might enjoy.
If it isn't for me to judge, it isn't for anyone else to judge either. There are a lot of ways to play VO. That's the whole point of a sandbox MMO.
The only certainty of gameplay change is that someone is probably going to be upset about something. But, the only way that I listen to player input is if it isn't all irrational bitching and complaining, and people arguing from their own narrow perspective. The Suggestions that are taken the most seriously tend to be those that integrate many different play-styles and feedback to offer a balanced possibility.
VO is a concept in motion. The game I am currently developing is not the game it is today. It's not the game it was in 2006. Don't get me wrong, it has elements of all of the above (hopefully the best of them), and new concepts as well. But it will always be something new, something evolved. I'm always looking forward, and that has always been the way things work here. I always think it's possibly to take the best of what we've had and expand it further.
Balance may roll from one side to another and then back again, but generally the only sacred cows are "twitch combat" and "(mostly) no safe place", so the rest of it is always on the table.
By way of a reminder, we're working towards a title with an expanded galaxy, conquerable territory, player-owned stations and capital ships, potentially with hired captains (and convoy escorts), player-posted trade routes to feed manufacturing, and a lot of other concepts..
This is not simply "Space Quake in B8". I'm fine with capship risk. I can advocate for piracy and PvP, along with trading at the same time. I love finding new reasons to push people together and create interesting situations (including combative ones). But don't limit your thinking purely on a vision of the game from the past.
We can value capital ships, and the time it takes to build them. We can confer great advantages to the people who own them, and we can still have people battling in fighters. Or playing the game solo. Or whatever else. I'm interested in game mechanics that result in reasonably balanced systems.
If you can't integrate the viability of play-styles you don't personally represent, into your thinking, then Suggestions is probably Not For You.
Keep it positive and productive, focus on debating the ideas and not the individuals (nor discounting the play-styles).
I didn't realize i was claiming anything other than my opinion, I don't see why you took such offense to my statement, VOs flight mechanics are unique amongst space games and should be celebrated. I also didn't say anyones play styles were wrong just that I think people should be encouraged to utilize the actual twitch combat skills this game develops since there are a multitude of other games that let larger ships be mostly immune to smaller ships and don't require FPS style skills.
I think thats a lot different than saying "play my way or leave" and theres no need to call me arrogant
I think thats a lot different than saying "play my way or leave" and theres no need to call me arrogant
If people want to fly around in larger ships that are immune to smaller ships they can always play eve.
Actually, that has a very strong implication that people who don't agree with your goals, should go play a different game. That's what it actually says.
If that isn't what you intended, then you should choose different words.
Anyway, let's bring that back around to the OP: feedback on the ramifications of making capship turret weapons use "energy".
Actually, that has a very strong implication that people who don't agree with your goals, should go play a different game. That's what it actually says.
If that isn't what you intended, then you should choose different words.
Anyway, let's bring that back around to the OP: feedback on the ramifications of making capship turret weapons use "energy".
Perhaps having turrets on piloted ships be destroy-able would be sufficient? Sure a pilot could hop out and back in (as the game is now), but that makes them vulnerable, and if they are dead, you can plink away at their ship more easily.
That SOUNDS easier to implement, though I'd like to hear from Incarnate if that is so.
That SOUNDS easier to implement, though I'd like to hear from Incarnate if that is so.
I'm honestly not sure if it's "easier", it would require a dive on the codebase. But regardless, it needs to be done, we need individually destructible turrets. The only reason why we don't have them is, frankly, the length of implementation back when we rolled out capships (and since then, it's always seemed like there were Bigger Issues, like causing capships to persist after sector shutdown, or not break all homing missile locks when you launch, etc).
It probably would go a long way to mitigating the seeming invulnerability of capital ships. If we did implement it, there would probably be some significant cooldown or "repair" process, to the respective turrets, so it's definitely a way to add another challenge to defense.
Of course, damaging turrets would still likely require the capship shields to be dropped first..
It probably would go a long way to mitigating the seeming invulnerability of capital ships. If we did implement it, there would probably be some significant cooldown or "repair" process, to the respective turrets, so it's definitely a way to add another challenge to defense.
Of course, damaging turrets would still likely require the capship shields to be dropped first..
Of course, damaging turrets would still likely require the capship shields to be dropped first..
Thankfully that is not too much of an issue for most the playerbase. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread can deshield ships quite easily. Once the turrets get stripped, well time to call friends in for support. :-)
Thankfully that is not too much of an issue for most the playerbase. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread can deshield ships quite easily. Once the turrets get stripped, well time to call friends in for support. :-)
Destructible turrets and other parts like the engine would be interesting but that doesn't solve the problem and should be discussed at a later date. The main problem is defending against a cap ship and not destroying it. To destroy one the players already work in groups because taking a cap ship head on with a fighter isn't practical and won't work in most cases (if at all). Currently the biggest problem is infinite shooting, especially when turboing. Cap ships can turbo forever and still spam swarms at a chaser with PCBs for example who can't turbo forever because the fighter has to use energy to shoot. It's really easy to kill chasers and cap ships are basically immortal and can do whatever they want against a single person or 2. They can shut down an entire sector by themselves with this and there is little we can do about it and you don't always have a handy group of cap ship hunters to your aid to destroy it. With this change you can defend yourself against one by yourself without having to destroy it.
You're doing it wrong. I'm going to tell you how to kill a cap ship. Remember this: once a cap ship is PCBed it goes only 40 m/s. Meaning you don't need to turbo at all to keep it power drained.
Tactic #1 One pilot pilots a dedicated PCB rig. A rag actually works well for this. Chain fired pcbs in the small ports and missiles(stingrays are fine. Swarms will also work) in the large. The rag deshields the capship and then switches to chain fire pcbs. Once the capship is power drained, the others in group use energy to kill the capship. Boom. Done. I've done it in groups hundreds of times against player piloted capships.
Tactic #2 Three pilots in hounds. 1 with dual pcbs, the other two in dual hx hounds. The dual pcb hound fixes the dent, the hx hounds deshield and kill it. (done this as well).
Tactic #3 Solo pcb fighter with the squadron/furies. This works fast. Done this as well. (Neon Black likes this tactic)
Incarnate has given us a multitude of tools to kill cap ships efficiently. You just need to actually try them out.
Which is why destructible turrets solve most the problems with capships. Deshield the ship, strip the turrets, and you have neutered the capship. All the capship pilot will have left is the large port weapon, or maybe the ability to undock and engage the aggressors fighter to fighter.
Again, the problem is NOT KILLING THEM, it's DEFENDING against them. I don't want to and can't kill a cap ship with PCBs. It's just that even with 0 energy in the cell they can still fire as much as they want and ruin a whole sector with this. And you don't always have a cap ship hunter team magically appearing out of nowhere to help you to take it down or chase it away. If the only thing that would change would be to make the turrets destructible you still need to deshield them and kill the turrets which would be incredibly hard because then you would use things like neuts and not PCBs which would mean the cap ship could turbo away which would make hitting the turrets basically impossible. Having destructible turrets would certainly be nice and good for the future but it wouldn't solve the current issue of cap ships overpowering non-cap-ship users and destroying the playability of a sector.
A solo fighter shouldn't be able to kill a cap ship but they should be able to defend themselves against one.
A solo fighter shouldn't be able to kill a cap ship but they should be able to defend themselves against one.
If there is only one person besides the cap ship trying to use that sector, it is an exaggeration to say that the sector has been shut down. If the lone pilot isn't quite good enough to chase off a capship on his own, he'll just have to go somewhere else until it leaves. No big deal. And chasing off a capship solo will be easier once turrets can die.
If there are more than one person being oppressed by the capship, they can just fight the capship until it goes away or dies.
So I don't see the issue.
If there are more than one person being oppressed by the capship, they can just fight the capship until it goes away or dies.
So I don't see the issue.
I hate capships, and do my best to kill them whenever I see one. I have de-shielded Nihilus 'dent while trading through B8 (he was AFK at first). I have taken out a couple of TGFT capships (here is smiling at you Galactically Actually) too! You tend to find that once the shields drop, they run away anyway! Do enough damage too and they usually will not come back!
Sure, none of this was done in a fighter, in fact my capship-boomer of choice is a centaur with 2 jackhammers and whatever energy gun I have to hand. You can even take down the shield of a trident with this! I mean, you may have to change ship if a capship turns up, but no quarrels there - I mean, no one ship should be able to do everything, especially not a fighter.
I do kind of agree that capships should require energy to shoot, but I think the pool of energy they have should be much much higher if this was the case.
Meh +1
Sure, none of this was done in a fighter, in fact my capship-boomer of choice is a centaur with 2 jackhammers and whatever energy gun I have to hand. You can even take down the shield of a trident with this! I mean, you may have to change ship if a capship turns up, but no quarrels there - I mean, no one ship should be able to do everything, especially not a fighter.
I do kind of agree that capships should require energy to shoot, but I think the pool of energy they have should be much much higher if this was the case.
Meh +1
Heini said:
"Again, the problem is NOT KILLING THEM, it's DEFENDING against them."
The defense against a cap ship is..... drum roll.... fly to another sector.
In 32 systems, there are 8192 sectors with less than a handful you can't jump into.
Even if you wanted to pass through the same sector as a cap, it's easily done.
[Removed text not in keeping with forum rules. Please read them. -W]
"Again, the problem is NOT KILLING THEM, it's DEFENDING against them."
The defense against a cap ship is..... drum roll.... fly to another sector.
In 32 systems, there are 8192 sectors with less than a handful you can't jump into.
Even if you wanted to pass through the same sector as a cap, it's easily done.
[Removed text not in keeping with forum rules. Please read them. -W]
I highly doubt you have killed "hundreds" of player owned capital ships let alone tridents. The real issue with capships and them expanding further and further in number is that theres only really a handful of ships and weapons that are useable against them, and infitubro is almost necessary since you need to keep them from running away.
I'd really rather their shield get taken away and their armor increased so that it would still be a very difficult task for a solo pilot to take one out but would make prom and valk squads more viable for anti-capship measures.
IMO theres really no role for the super special nation ships anymore given the nature of the way the game has changed and how the best set ups for when a capship gets dropped on you are generic ships.
I'd really rather their shield get taken away and their armor increased so that it would still be a very difficult task for a solo pilot to take one out but would make prom and valk squads more viable for anti-capship measures.
IMO theres really no role for the super special nation ships anymore given the nature of the way the game has changed and how the best set ups for when a capship gets dropped on you are generic ships.
@Skinwalker
If your only option is to run away from a cap ship it's clearly a case of imbalance and should be fixed. It's still a 1v1 and just because one ship took long to build doesn't mean it can be overpowered and go against game mechanics such as using resources to shoot.
If your only option is to run away from a cap ship it's clearly a case of imbalance and should be fixed. It's still a 1v1 and just because one ship took long to build doesn't mean it can be overpowered and go against game mechanics such as using resources to shoot.