Forums » Suggestions
The problem arent fighters only!
But the handful of players using turret bots.
Its nothing about using energy. Its about the fact ActivateTurrets is nothing compared to them.
Based on all available data that I have seen (including actively watching turret-bot players), this is objectively false, misinformed, and wrong.
Unlike this, bots can fire all weapons forward.
This is also wrong. The limitations on firing angle were put into place, in part, to limit bots, as some may recollect, which upset some people in 2017. Bots and ActivateTurrets have the same angular firing restrictions. They also use the same target-tracking mechanics.
Thats insane amount of firepower just by ONE PLAYER! Giefers are able to effortlessly letting the bots to do the job and rip the poor trader apart.
U think this is fair? A big NO! This is broken overpowered!
This is the problem with people taking rumors and innuendo as fact.
If there are examples of someone seriously exploiting the game, we have mechanisms to report that (like, say, tickets, or even Bugs).. but no one has done so.
That's because this whole perception of "Turret Bots" is massively overblown.
- They had a concentrated-firepower advantage before we limited the turret firing angles, four years ago. This was a meaningful advantage, but it only existed for a few months.
- There was also an advantage (recently) when they didn't deplete energy, relative to ActivateTurrets, but that was a known limitation that only existed for a few weeks (delayed due to other game-exploits).
Turret Bots are actually kind of a messy hack that, and while useful in some cases, was never very elegant. I expect it will probably die a natural death, now that the energy-usage is the same for both player-turrets and ActivateTurrets.
Imaginary problems with Turret Bots should not be infecting a reasoned conversation about PCBs.
But the handful of players using turret bots.
Its nothing about using energy. Its about the fact ActivateTurrets is nothing compared to them.
Based on all available data that I have seen (including actively watching turret-bot players), this is objectively false, misinformed, and wrong.
Unlike this, bots can fire all weapons forward.
This is also wrong. The limitations on firing angle were put into place, in part, to limit bots, as some may recollect, which upset some people in 2017. Bots and ActivateTurrets have the same angular firing restrictions. They also use the same target-tracking mechanics.
Thats insane amount of firepower just by ONE PLAYER! Giefers are able to effortlessly letting the bots to do the job and rip the poor trader apart.
U think this is fair? A big NO! This is broken overpowered!
This is the problem with people taking rumors and innuendo as fact.
If there are examples of someone seriously exploiting the game, we have mechanisms to report that (like, say, tickets, or even Bugs).. but no one has done so.
That's because this whole perception of "Turret Bots" is massively overblown.
- They had a concentrated-firepower advantage before we limited the turret firing angles, four years ago. This was a meaningful advantage, but it only existed for a few months.
- There was also an advantage (recently) when they didn't deplete energy, relative to ActivateTurrets, but that was a known limitation that only existed for a few weeks (delayed due to other game-exploits).
Turret Bots are actually kind of a messy hack that, and while useful in some cases, was never very elegant. I expect it will probably die a natural death, now that the energy-usage is the same for both player-turrets and ActivateTurrets.
Imaginary problems with Turret Bots should not be infecting a reasoned conversation about PCBs.
Golis are okay, freighters... But Tridents? They are proper combat frigates.
ALL CURRENT LARGE PLAYER-SHIPS ARE BASICALLY ARMED FREIGHTERS. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT MILITARY-CLASS VESSELS.
I don't know how much more blunt I need to be. People need to re-assess their expectations.
Yes, it should never have had the word "frigate" anywhere near the name. But it was also released so incredibly early that it was barely functional, the "name" was hardly given much thought, particularly as it was a copy of an NPC vessel.
Now we're getting to a point where player-capships are starting to come out of "beta", and there will probably be more types of them, they'll be adjusted to fit more rationally into the universe. They'll have more benefits, and more trade-offs. And player expectations will need to adjust to fit that model.
I'm fine with having asymmetric options in VO, but the small-ship PCB freezing a Trident is absurd. The Somali pirate example is unimpressive.
I'm here to inform, not impress. I was responding to a post made around an "expectation" and a "mental model", as I explicitly described. So, I used an analogy to depict the difference between the expectation and something closer to the reality.
A Vult freezing a Dent is at most annoying. But a Vult freezing a Dent while a strike force of Rags assembles three jumps away is a serious threat. It is **too** asymmetric.
I mean.. that's actually the point. Without that, there would be no threat, practically, as the vessels are too effectively mobile. Something we saw in the past, which is why the PCB was added.
I think it is comical that analogies to perceived space combat in the future are not allowed, but we do get to use analogies to tankers in the Persian Gulf. Well done, defenders of the PCB. Seriously well done. (slow applause)
Again, you're missing the point. I'm trying to help people come to grips with a misunderstanding of the role and capabilities of current capital ships.
It doesn't matter if your examples are about "perceived space combat in the future" or "world war II combat". If you're defining the current Goliath or the Trident Type M as something other than an armed freighter, you're wrong, and you're going to spend a lot of time being upset in the future.
This is not actually a new thing, I've been saying versions of it for years. People just haven't been paying attention.
ALL CURRENT LARGE PLAYER-SHIPS ARE BASICALLY ARMED FREIGHTERS. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT MILITARY-CLASS VESSELS.
I don't know how much more blunt I need to be. People need to re-assess their expectations.
Yes, it should never have had the word "frigate" anywhere near the name. But it was also released so incredibly early that it was barely functional, the "name" was hardly given much thought, particularly as it was a copy of an NPC vessel.
Now we're getting to a point where player-capships are starting to come out of "beta", and there will probably be more types of them, they'll be adjusted to fit more rationally into the universe. They'll have more benefits, and more trade-offs. And player expectations will need to adjust to fit that model.
I'm fine with having asymmetric options in VO, but the small-ship PCB freezing a Trident is absurd. The Somali pirate example is unimpressive.
I'm here to inform, not impress. I was responding to a post made around an "expectation" and a "mental model", as I explicitly described. So, I used an analogy to depict the difference between the expectation and something closer to the reality.
A Vult freezing a Dent is at most annoying. But a Vult freezing a Dent while a strike force of Rags assembles three jumps away is a serious threat. It is **too** asymmetric.
I mean.. that's actually the point. Without that, there would be no threat, practically, as the vessels are too effectively mobile. Something we saw in the past, which is why the PCB was added.
I think it is comical that analogies to perceived space combat in the future are not allowed, but we do get to use analogies to tankers in the Persian Gulf. Well done, defenders of the PCB. Seriously well done. (slow applause)
Again, you're missing the point. I'm trying to help people come to grips with a misunderstanding of the role and capabilities of current capital ships.
It doesn't matter if your examples are about "perceived space combat in the future" or "world war II combat". If you're defining the current Goliath or the Trident Type M as something other than an armed freighter, you're wrong, and you're going to spend a lot of time being upset in the future.
This is not actually a new thing, I've been saying versions of it for years. People just haven't been paying attention.
-1 I don’t think this is the answer.
My trident and my goliaths have all been the target of PCB attacks. I've killed every single person that ever PCB'd me. Every one.
Or they broke it off and flew away when it was apparent they couldn't hold me.
[I edited this post to conform to our standard for the Suggestions forum. Please ensure that your posts are in line with our efforts to keep Suggestions a safe place to collaborate. -W]
I don't support this suggestion, here is why.
Someone keep a sunflare/chaos swarm rag in their capship to fend of a 'lone vulture' that's pcb'ing them. A lone vulture with a PCB carries only one other weapon. Simply spraying ammo at the attacker is enough to make them back off long enough to hop back into the trident, activate turrets and laugh while the cap-rails or capitol swarms do their thing.
Alternatively, the capitol ship pilot could try and maintain a better level of situational awareness, and start turning at various times while the pcb'er is on their approach. Could somebody in a light enough ship (super-light might work) dodge in and then land pcb shots on target, sure if they are good enough. Making tridents into unkillable cargo haulers is I think not something that would help the game.
Someone keep a sunflare/chaos swarm rag in their capship to fend of a 'lone vulture' that's pcb'ing them. A lone vulture with a PCB carries only one other weapon. Simply spraying ammo at the attacker is enough to make them back off long enough to hop back into the trident, activate turrets and laugh while the cap-rails or capitol swarms do their thing.
Alternatively, the capitol ship pilot could try and maintain a better level of situational awareness, and start turning at various times while the pcb'er is on their approach. Could somebody in a light enough ship (super-light might work) dodge in and then land pcb shots on target, sure if they are good enough. Making tridents into unkillable cargo haulers is I think not something that would help the game.
That is why this suggestion though LNH, not everyone wants to fire back and for some reason a certain type of player seems to always think they should be able to do what they want, when they want, regardless of the apparent dangers of the universe (and even though they are told over and over). The sad thing is, the people for this idea are not new players and should have some idea by now what VO is about.
Of course, the other side of this is that you cannot carry a rag if you are stuffing your capship full of XCs stacked with cargo (should that even be possible?). They want to be able to move all their stuff around the universe and be immune to attack because they themselves do not like pvp combat (in any shape or form), so they do not "load up" with danger in mind.
I do not understand myself what this game has to offer besides the PVP and a little PVE to level up, although I understand that will change with time (it isn't there yet). I do not understand why people who are constantly told over and over again that there is no "safe" place by design keep suggesting things that will break that. I do understand why some people do not want to engage in pvp, but I do not understand why they think that means pvpers should not be able to kill them.
Eh, probably a moot point, and my input is probably the last thing pve'rs want to hear but this is the games actual description "Vendetta Online is a 3D space combat MMORPG for Windows, Mac, Linux, Android and iOS, as well as the Oculus Rift. This MMO permits thousands of players to interact as the pilots of spaceships in a vast universe." Bring guns, or go home.
Of course, the other side of this is that you cannot carry a rag if you are stuffing your capship full of XCs stacked with cargo (should that even be possible?). They want to be able to move all their stuff around the universe and be immune to attack because they themselves do not like pvp combat (in any shape or form), so they do not "load up" with danger in mind.
I do not understand myself what this game has to offer besides the PVP and a little PVE to level up, although I understand that will change with time (it isn't there yet). I do not understand why people who are constantly told over and over again that there is no "safe" place by design keep suggesting things that will break that. I do understand why some people do not want to engage in pvp, but I do not understand why they think that means pvpers should not be able to kill them.
Eh, probably a moot point, and my input is probably the last thing pve'rs want to hear but this is the games actual description "Vendetta Online is a 3D space combat MMORPG for Windows, Mac, Linux, Android and iOS, as well as the Oculus Rift. This MMO permits thousands of players to interact as the pilots of spaceships in a vast universe." Bring guns, or go home.