Forums » Suggestions
Piro,
I was crediting his point by statign that I did have experience with the weapons and have come to the same conclusion.
cheers
I was crediting his point by statign that I did have experience with the weapons and have come to the same conclusion.
cheers
Alright. After playing literally all day and having sat through 4 seperate arguments over players with flares and gauss and dueling, i've come to one conclusing.
Something has got to change. Either we all need some relief from the stupid "oooh, i'm the l33t uber-pirate" that keep drifting around in the chat, or were not gonna draw in anyone for new players.
Although it would be very nice to just completely get rid of both flares and the gauss cannon, solving all the arguments at once, they are nice weapons when not abused.
Could we either..
A. Limit these weapons to only 1 for any given craft except perhaps heavy bombers since those arent really pirate craft...
B. Make them ungodly expensive, especially the ammo for the flares so that you have to be wondefuly good and sucessful and not want to use 3 or 4 at time for any reason...
or
C. Tone down damage and firing rate for both weapons to the point that its a now and then shot sort of thing and not anything worth using in close combat...
Anyone with me on this?
And last I checked, flying straight through a sector without firing on anyone else or bothering to even stop at all wasnt running, it was just plain cargo hauling. If I actually attacked someone or went into a battle then turbo'd out, that would be running. So how bout taking that attitude and sticking it, well, you know where.
Something has got to change. Either we all need some relief from the stupid "oooh, i'm the l33t uber-pirate" that keep drifting around in the chat, or were not gonna draw in anyone for new players.
Although it would be very nice to just completely get rid of both flares and the gauss cannon, solving all the arguments at once, they are nice weapons when not abused.
Could we either..
A. Limit these weapons to only 1 for any given craft except perhaps heavy bombers since those arent really pirate craft...
B. Make them ungodly expensive, especially the ammo for the flares so that you have to be wondefuly good and sucessful and not want to use 3 or 4 at time for any reason...
or
C. Tone down damage and firing rate for both weapons to the point that its a now and then shot sort of thing and not anything worth using in close combat...
Anyone with me on this?
And last I checked, flying straight through a sector without firing on anyone else or bothering to even stop at all wasnt running, it was just plain cargo hauling. If I actually attacked someone or went into a battle then turbo'd out, that would be running. So how bout taking that attitude and sticking it, well, you know where.
Nay.
The reason I say nay is because neither weapon is completely cheap... if you know what you're doing you can survive either.
-outrider
The reason I say nay is because neither weapon is completely cheap... if you know what you're doing you can survive either.
-outrider
If you know what your doing. Yes. But what about the less than know how it works players... they chopped liver or are the noobs no longer welcome here...
Reduce the prox. 60 m is too huge...
/me taps Celebrim on the shoulder
Pssst... Celebrim, this is a suggestions forum.
PS: I told you so.
=b
Pssst... Celebrim, this is a suggestions forum.
PS: I told you so.
=b
Like once posted in a previous post :D
suns:
12 - 18 shots with 1 tube.
6 - 9 with 2 tubes
4 - 6 with 3 tubes.
I prefer the first set of numbers though, it will make the flare as a 3 set up only usable by people that are very sure that their shots will hit. 2 suns for the person who isnt very sure. And one who knows that he needs a hell of a lot of chances to score 1 hit with them.
It will solve the flareproblem at once.
And who cares if people run to the station, at least you didnt lose your ship and maybe even cargo ;).
The gauss just needs his repetition rate halfed. So decrease his RoF by a factor equal to 1/2.
cheers
PS: only my opinion though
suns:
12 - 18 shots with 1 tube.
6 - 9 with 2 tubes
4 - 6 with 3 tubes.
I prefer the first set of numbers though, it will make the flare as a 3 set up only usable by people that are very sure that their shots will hit. 2 suns for the person who isnt very sure. And one who knows that he needs a hell of a lot of chances to score 1 hit with them.
It will solve the flareproblem at once.
And who cares if people run to the station, at least you didnt lose your ship and maybe even cargo ;).
The gauss just needs his repetition rate halfed. So decrease his RoF by a factor equal to 1/2.
cheers
PS: only my opinion though
I'm personally sick and tired of talking about game balance, and I'm sick and tired of 'petitions'.
I've been discussing game balance for more than a year now, and I'm tired of listening to people make the same mistakes again and again and again. The devs will address game balance when they think it is important to do so.
Repeat after me:
1) I will not propose to balance something merely by changing its price.
2) I will not propose to balance the game by nerfing whatever the most popular weapon/ship/configuration is at present.
3) I will not propose to balance the game by making changes which run contrary to the developers stated goals and vision.
4) I will not propose complex special and unique restrictions on how a peice of equipment is used if simplier ones will do.
5) I will not propose to 'balance' an item by making part of it better and part of it worse.
6) I will not look at any change in isolation but will think about what else will change (including behaviors that might bypass your attempt at balance) if the proposed change is made.
Frankly, I think that the fundamental thesis to this thread is flawed. And for that matter, I don't particularly like arguements which conceal thier thesis in order to hide what would otherwise be a completely evident logical fallacy.
I've been discussing game balance for more than a year now, and I'm tired of listening to people make the same mistakes again and again and again. The devs will address game balance when they think it is important to do so.
Repeat after me:
1) I will not propose to balance something merely by changing its price.
2) I will not propose to balance the game by nerfing whatever the most popular weapon/ship/configuration is at present.
3) I will not propose to balance the game by making changes which run contrary to the developers stated goals and vision.
4) I will not propose complex special and unique restrictions on how a peice of equipment is used if simplier ones will do.
5) I will not propose to 'balance' an item by making part of it better and part of it worse.
6) I will not look at any change in isolation but will think about what else will change (including behaviors that might bypass your attempt at balance) if the proposed change is made.
Frankly, I think that the fundamental thesis to this thread is flawed. And for that matter, I don't particularly like arguements which conceal thier thesis in order to hide what would otherwise be a completely evident logical fallacy.
i disagree cause the gauss is the only good weapon for taking down the frig
That's the avalon's job. They just need to be placed back in the game, once the problem of station nuking has been solved. Capice?
1) I will not propose to balance something merely by changing its price.
didnt do that.
2) I will not propose to balance the game by nerfing whatever the most popular weapon/ship/configuration is at present.
Didnt nerve it, gauss is used because of its hard punch but slow repetition rate. Use it with care, if it hits, then it hits haaaarrrdd, It is supposed to be a few chances heave hitter type of weapon. Like the sun, if it hits then yeaaaah multo damage, but no prox but a better aimbot and unlimited shots, as long as your bat can keep it.
3) I will not propose to balance the game by making changes which run contrary to the developers stated goals and vision.
none at all, the 3 set up is still possible, only it will be used with care in stead of carelessly like lets just slap on 3 flares, and just ram people to death.
4) I will not propose complex special and unique restrictions on how a peice of equipment is used if simplier ones will do.
Neither, not special, not unique, just plain and simple, 1 tube makes the fixed amount of 12 shots be sen tout with 1 at a time, 2 will make it with 2 at a time, effectively halving the number of shots. And will increase again the "skill" of hitting someone in stead of the spray and ram tactic :(
5) I will not propose to 'balance' an item by making part of it better and part of it worse.
Neither, I just glorified their actual intended use. As a backupweapon, not a primary.
6) I will not look at any change in isolation but will think about what else will change (including behaviors that might bypass your attempt at balance) if the proposed change is made.
Dot think there are any, and if there are, its a case for the next iterative progress step.
cheers
didnt do that.
2) I will not propose to balance the game by nerfing whatever the most popular weapon/ship/configuration is at present.
Didnt nerve it, gauss is used because of its hard punch but slow repetition rate. Use it with care, if it hits, then it hits haaaarrrdd, It is supposed to be a few chances heave hitter type of weapon. Like the sun, if it hits then yeaaaah multo damage, but no prox but a better aimbot and unlimited shots, as long as your bat can keep it.
3) I will not propose to balance the game by making changes which run contrary to the developers stated goals and vision.
none at all, the 3 set up is still possible, only it will be used with care in stead of carelessly like lets just slap on 3 flares, and just ram people to death.
4) I will not propose complex special and unique restrictions on how a peice of equipment is used if simplier ones will do.
Neither, not special, not unique, just plain and simple, 1 tube makes the fixed amount of 12 shots be sen tout with 1 at a time, 2 will make it with 2 at a time, effectively halving the number of shots. And will increase again the "skill" of hitting someone in stead of the spray and ram tactic :(
5) I will not propose to 'balance' an item by making part of it better and part of it worse.
Neither, I just glorified their actual intended use. As a backupweapon, not a primary.
6) I will not look at any change in isolation but will think about what else will change (including behaviors that might bypass your attempt at balance) if the proposed change is made.
Dot think there are any, and if there are, its a case for the next iterative progress step.
cheers
Kinda weird to come from a tri/dual-flare user, but heck...
I propose lowering the Sunflare's rate of fire to 1.5 seconds. Also, I would very much like splash damage to do 1.5 or even 2x the current damage to YOURSELF. This will ensure triflare-ramming newbies quickly learn never to ram (if they're not very keen on going bankrupt, that is). Lowering the proximity of flares to 50-40m wouldn't be bad, either.
Yes, I would very much like to see the Sunflares become a weapon for the skilled, not a weapon who makes whoever uses it "skilled".
I propose lowering the Sunflare's rate of fire to 1.5 seconds. Also, I would very much like splash damage to do 1.5 or even 2x the current damage to YOURSELF. This will ensure triflare-ramming newbies quickly learn never to ram (if they're not very keen on going bankrupt, that is). Lowering the proximity of flares to 50-40m wouldn't be bad, either.
Yes, I would very much like to see the Sunflares become a weapon for the skilled, not a weapon who makes whoever uses it "skilled".
"1) I will not propose to balance something merely by changing its price.
didnt do that."
No, but Ceadda did.
"2) I will not propose to balance the game by nerfing whatever the most popular weapon/ship/configuration is at present.
Didnt nerve [sic] it, gauss is used because of its hard punch but slow repetition rate. Use it with care, if it hits, then it hits haaaarrrdd, It is supposed to be a few chances heave hitter type of weapon. Like the sun, if it hits then yeaaaah multo damage, but no prox but a better aimbot and unlimited shots, as long as your bat can keep it."
The whole point of this thread 'Problem with Gauss and Flares' is making suggestion for nerfing the Gauss and Sunflare.
"3) I will not propose to balance the game by making changes which run contrary to the developers stated goals and vision.
none at all, the 3 set up is still possible, only it will be used with care in stead of carelessly like lets just slap on 3 flares, and just ram people to death."
No, but Ceadda proposed limitations on the slots, and I've been down that road with the devs. I proposed that back in the days of 3.2.0. Yes, it makes the balance simplier, but they aren't interested. They have this vision of full configurability.
And I get tired of hearing how the flare is used carelessly. Maybe by n00bs, but there are some very good tri-flare pirate types, and I get tired of hearing the run down as 'rammers'.
"4) I will not propose complex special and unique restrictions on how a peice of equipment is used if simplier ones will do.
Neither, not special, not unique, just plain and simple, 1 tube makes the fixed amount of 12 shots be sen tout with 1 at a time, 2 will make it with 2 at a time, effectively halving the number of shots. And will increase again the "skill" of hitting someone in stead of the spray and ram tactic :("
It will do no such thing, and if this isn't a unique solution you've got bigger problems.
"5) I will not propose to 'balance' an item by making part of it better and part of it worse.
Neither, I just glorified their actual intended use. As a backupweapon, not a primary."
First, you don't know there intended use. You have decided what there intended use should be and are trying to make them conform, but nowhere have the devs said 'You know, we always envisioned rockets as more of a backup weapon and we wish people would stop using them.'
"6) I will not look at any change in isolation but will think about what else will change (including behaviors that might bypass your attempt at balance) if the proposed change is made.
Dot think there are any, and if there are, its a case for the next iterative progress step."
Oh really? Well, if this 'solution' isn't special and unique, then the way you are treating Sunflare ammo is the way you are treating all ammo right? That means if you mount two lightning mine dispencers on your ship, you still just get 4 ammo, right? That means if you are mounting 2 screamers on your ship, you still just get 16 ammo right? If you mount 3 rails, well you divide the 32 ammo amongst them, right?
No? Yes? You see, your one little change changes the balance of every other ammunition carrying weapon in the game. Did you think about that? If you did, why didn't you propose a related set of changes to fix other problems that would crop up instead of looking at this change as if it was something you could do in issolation?
And all you've really suggested is that tri-flares get fewer shots. Fine, but that does nothing to solve the problem. Did you think about how the behavior of tri-flare users might change to accomodate this? Is or is not 4 shots from a tri-flare enough to destroy almost every ship in the game? All you are going to change is the ammount of time the flare-users spend out hunting before fleeing back to the safety of the base for reloads. Most players will still be 'Thunderclawed' because like it or not, some of the better players in the game use the tri-flare.
You haven't addressed the underlying problems at all. You've made it alot easier for an experienced player to survive a tri-flare attack, but most of our experienced players claim that the can avoid Sunflares already. That isn't really the problem, and even if it was, you've done very little to change the dynamic of experienced vs. n00b combats and n00b vs. n00b combats.
And lastly, your solution is cludgy. It just doesn't feel right to put a weapon in a slot and get 12 ammo with it, and then put another of the same weapon in another of the same type of slot and you get no free ammo with it. Aren't the weapons and the slots the same size whether or mount one first or one second? It feels 'gamey', and while I'm sure you could make up some sort of backstory to explain it, ultimately its always going to be psychologically unsatisfying. It's ok to have 'It's just a game explanations' from time to time, but ideally you want to avoid those ever coming into the mind of the player. You want to players to naturally emmerse themselves into your universe, not be constantly reminded that it's 'just a game'. It's just not good design.
didnt do that."
No, but Ceadda did.
"2) I will not propose to balance the game by nerfing whatever the most popular weapon/ship/configuration is at present.
Didnt nerve [sic] it, gauss is used because of its hard punch but slow repetition rate. Use it with care, if it hits, then it hits haaaarrrdd, It is supposed to be a few chances heave hitter type of weapon. Like the sun, if it hits then yeaaaah multo damage, but no prox but a better aimbot and unlimited shots, as long as your bat can keep it."
The whole point of this thread 'Problem with Gauss and Flares' is making suggestion for nerfing the Gauss and Sunflare.
"3) I will not propose to balance the game by making changes which run contrary to the developers stated goals and vision.
none at all, the 3 set up is still possible, only it will be used with care in stead of carelessly like lets just slap on 3 flares, and just ram people to death."
No, but Ceadda proposed limitations on the slots, and I've been down that road with the devs. I proposed that back in the days of 3.2.0. Yes, it makes the balance simplier, but they aren't interested. They have this vision of full configurability.
And I get tired of hearing how the flare is used carelessly. Maybe by n00bs, but there are some very good tri-flare pirate types, and I get tired of hearing the run down as 'rammers'.
"4) I will not propose complex special and unique restrictions on how a peice of equipment is used if simplier ones will do.
Neither, not special, not unique, just plain and simple, 1 tube makes the fixed amount of 12 shots be sen tout with 1 at a time, 2 will make it with 2 at a time, effectively halving the number of shots. And will increase again the "skill" of hitting someone in stead of the spray and ram tactic :("
It will do no such thing, and if this isn't a unique solution you've got bigger problems.
"5) I will not propose to 'balance' an item by making part of it better and part of it worse.
Neither, I just glorified their actual intended use. As a backupweapon, not a primary."
First, you don't know there intended use. You have decided what there intended use should be and are trying to make them conform, but nowhere have the devs said 'You know, we always envisioned rockets as more of a backup weapon and we wish people would stop using them.'
"6) I will not look at any change in isolation but will think about what else will change (including behaviors that might bypass your attempt at balance) if the proposed change is made.
Dot think there are any, and if there are, its a case for the next iterative progress step."
Oh really? Well, if this 'solution' isn't special and unique, then the way you are treating Sunflare ammo is the way you are treating all ammo right? That means if you mount two lightning mine dispencers on your ship, you still just get 4 ammo, right? That means if you are mounting 2 screamers on your ship, you still just get 16 ammo right? If you mount 3 rails, well you divide the 32 ammo amongst them, right?
No? Yes? You see, your one little change changes the balance of every other ammunition carrying weapon in the game. Did you think about that? If you did, why didn't you propose a related set of changes to fix other problems that would crop up instead of looking at this change as if it was something you could do in issolation?
And all you've really suggested is that tri-flares get fewer shots. Fine, but that does nothing to solve the problem. Did you think about how the behavior of tri-flare users might change to accomodate this? Is or is not 4 shots from a tri-flare enough to destroy almost every ship in the game? All you are going to change is the ammount of time the flare-users spend out hunting before fleeing back to the safety of the base for reloads. Most players will still be 'Thunderclawed' because like it or not, some of the better players in the game use the tri-flare.
You haven't addressed the underlying problems at all. You've made it alot easier for an experienced player to survive a tri-flare attack, but most of our experienced players claim that the can avoid Sunflares already. That isn't really the problem, and even if it was, you've done very little to change the dynamic of experienced vs. n00b combats and n00b vs. n00b combats.
And lastly, your solution is cludgy. It just doesn't feel right to put a weapon in a slot and get 12 ammo with it, and then put another of the same weapon in another of the same type of slot and you get no free ammo with it. Aren't the weapons and the slots the same size whether or mount one first or one second? It feels 'gamey', and while I'm sure you could make up some sort of backstory to explain it, ultimately its always going to be psychologically unsatisfying. It's ok to have 'It's just a game explanations' from time to time, but ideally you want to avoid those ever coming into the mind of the player. You want to players to naturally emmerse themselves into your universe, not be constantly reminded that it's 'just a game'. It's just not good design.
The whole point of this thread 'Problem with Gauss and Flares' is making suggestion for nerfing the Gauss and Sunflare.
no the point is to solve a problem, not by nerving it but by finding a good solution.
And I get tired of hearing how the flare is used carelessly. Maybe by n00bs, but there are some very good tri-flare pirate types, and I get tired of hearing the run down as 'rammers'.
There are some good tri flare users yes. I admit that, they are limitted. But most of them need 7 shots to kill a person with tri flares, without using the ram. "a ram is doing damage to yourselve by hitting your intended target" And yes even those Pirates still ram.
The only exception might be phoenix and icarus. But they still ram from time to time because of a miscalculation. Or because they are tired seeing a couple of their missiles miss and want to end it fast.
It will do no such thing, and if this isn't a unique solution you've got bigger problems
It isnt unique, because im not the first bringing it up. And in my opinion it will be a good stop towards a solution for the flares. They are to powerfull, and limiting them to 4 shots a ship if used in a tri flare method is in my views not a bad idea.
First, you don't know there intended use. You have decided what there intended use should be and are trying to make them conform, but nowhere have the devs said 'You know, we always envisioned rockets as more of a backup weapon and we wish people would stop using them.'
Sunflares where based on the level 1/2 rockets from before. Everybody took a energyweapon because it has an infinite amount of shots. the devs themselves have special weapons "beamcannons" that are energyweapons. They started to mount them on the frigate, they mounted them on their ships. They didnt mount rockets on a frigate. They didnt mount rockets on a bot. They only mounted ENERGYweapons on bots and all. In my view this has as a general meaning that they consider the Energyweapon to be a primary weapon, and the rocket as a weapon that delivers a big punch if you are able to effectively use it to hit people.
Oh really? Well, if this 'solution' isn't special and unique, then the way you are treating Sunflare ammo is the way you are treating all ammo right? That means if you mount two lightning mine dispencers on your ship, you still just get 4 ammo, right? That means if you are mounting 2 screamers on your ship, you still just get 16 ammo right? If you mount 3 rails, well you divide the 32 ammo amongst them, right?
Since this thread is about the problem with flares, not the problem with mines or screamers. I was answerring based on the intention of this thread, not based on problems other people claim to see in other weapons just to dissuade somebody from making a constructive post.
Not to mention that I dont see the same problem happening for the screamer or something else since we dont have 3 screamer ports ships yet. And we dont know if they where in what effect they would have.
That is a problem for later. The problem now is the sunflare and the gauss, not the sunflare, the prox mine and the screamer, ...
And all you've really suggested is that tri-flares get fewer shots. Fine, but that does nothing to solve the problem. Did you think about how the behavior of tri-flare users might change to accomodate this? Is or is not 4 shots from a tri-flare enough to destroy almost every ship in the game? All you are going to change is the ammount of time the flare-users spend out hunting before fleeing back to the safety of the base for reloads. Most players will still be 'Thunderclawed' because like it or not, some of the better players in the game use the tri-flare.
Let them reload, what do I care if they reload. The most important thing is that I didnt lose a ship. But if they want to waste their time travelling up and down for ammunition, then please let them. It would be even better if there wasnt a station i nevery sector, just to discourage this behaviour, but like stated before, that is a problem for later. And since the devs were intended to make the universe bigger, they might have already calculated that problem in.
No 4 shots from a triflare is not enough to kill a ship, 4 direct hits is yes, but if you can score 4 direct shots with a tri flare rocket without the usage of the rammingtechnique, then my god I want to congratulate you, since most good tri flare non rammers need 6 - 7 shots. Also, in real world, and in the game, time is money. If you see tri flare valk A go to B then you go to C, if you dont feel sure about being able to outrun them.
You haven't addressed the underlying problems at all. You've made it alot easier for an experienced player to survive a tri-flare attack, but most of our experienced players claim that the can avoid Sunflares already. That isn't really the problem, and even if it was, you've done very little to change the dynamic of experienced vs. n00b combats and n00b vs. n00b combats.
Yes most of them can avoid sunflares. But they cant avoid all shots. From 16 shots I can avoid 10 - 12, but the 4 others hit me. If you draw the same conclusion for 4 shots and they use the same chances, then only 1 will hit, and I am able to survive 1.
Isnt it the reason to put in a small obstacle to keep newbies interested in the game. What was your chance of dodging a tach when you were a newbie? What was the chance of you dodging a level 2 rocket when you were a newbie? What was your chance of dodging a swarm when you ere a newbie? Almost nada, zilch, riente, niks, noppes, rien, nothing. But it is the devs intended SKILL objective that makes you able to avoide them if you are a vet or a semi vet or to say it in plain words: experienced. So it will give newbies the drive to go on and learn to try and dodge them. It will make vets interested in finding new ways to shoot them to increase chances of hitting with them. "an example of this is the boost rocket, and if used in a non ramming way, I have nothing against it"
And lastly, your solution is cludgy. It just doesn't feel right to put a weapon in a slot and get 12 ammo with it, and then put another of the same weapon in another of the same type of slot and you get no free ammo with it. Aren't the weapons and the slots the same size whether or mount one first or one second? It feels 'gamey', and while I'm sure you could make up some sort of backstory to explain it, ultimately its always going to be psychologically unsatisfying. It's ok to have 'It's just a game explanations' from time to time, but ideally you want to avoid those ever coming into the mind of the player. You want to players to naturally emmerse themselves into your universe, not be constantly reminded that it's 'just a game'. It's just not good design.
Not really, it can maybe look cludgy to you, but who states that every port contains place for sunports and rockets. Who says that they arent just the ports itself and that the middle one is the port and a load of rockets. And there is no possibility to add more ammo to them no matter how many ports you use since they are linked with each other and the mass of the ship wont let it "conform your mass induced proposal from some months ago". I dont know, Im just giving a possible solution, and I dont give a thing about the underlying reasoning, as long as the consequence is beneficial and possible to be explained by the simple answer: this is vendetta[TM] not real life.
And even if it does seem gamey, it is a possible placeholder for a more permanent solution, if they ever arise. Any solution is better then none, because like gthang stated in one of his previous posts and a view that I share is that this test is more a spacequakeversion then somethign else, and that the flares in their present form just add to this view.
cheers
no the point is to solve a problem, not by nerving it but by finding a good solution.
And I get tired of hearing how the flare is used carelessly. Maybe by n00bs, but there are some very good tri-flare pirate types, and I get tired of hearing the run down as 'rammers'.
There are some good tri flare users yes. I admit that, they are limitted. But most of them need 7 shots to kill a person with tri flares, without using the ram. "a ram is doing damage to yourselve by hitting your intended target" And yes even those Pirates still ram.
The only exception might be phoenix and icarus. But they still ram from time to time because of a miscalculation. Or because they are tired seeing a couple of their missiles miss and want to end it fast.
It will do no such thing, and if this isn't a unique solution you've got bigger problems
It isnt unique, because im not the first bringing it up. And in my opinion it will be a good stop towards a solution for the flares. They are to powerfull, and limiting them to 4 shots a ship if used in a tri flare method is in my views not a bad idea.
First, you don't know there intended use. You have decided what there intended use should be and are trying to make them conform, but nowhere have the devs said 'You know, we always envisioned rockets as more of a backup weapon and we wish people would stop using them.'
Sunflares where based on the level 1/2 rockets from before. Everybody took a energyweapon because it has an infinite amount of shots. the devs themselves have special weapons "beamcannons" that are energyweapons. They started to mount them on the frigate, they mounted them on their ships. They didnt mount rockets on a frigate. They didnt mount rockets on a bot. They only mounted ENERGYweapons on bots and all. In my view this has as a general meaning that they consider the Energyweapon to be a primary weapon, and the rocket as a weapon that delivers a big punch if you are able to effectively use it to hit people.
Oh really? Well, if this 'solution' isn't special and unique, then the way you are treating Sunflare ammo is the way you are treating all ammo right? That means if you mount two lightning mine dispencers on your ship, you still just get 4 ammo, right? That means if you are mounting 2 screamers on your ship, you still just get 16 ammo right? If you mount 3 rails, well you divide the 32 ammo amongst them, right?
Since this thread is about the problem with flares, not the problem with mines or screamers. I was answerring based on the intention of this thread, not based on problems other people claim to see in other weapons just to dissuade somebody from making a constructive post.
Not to mention that I dont see the same problem happening for the screamer or something else since we dont have 3 screamer ports ships yet. And we dont know if they where in what effect they would have.
That is a problem for later. The problem now is the sunflare and the gauss, not the sunflare, the prox mine and the screamer, ...
And all you've really suggested is that tri-flares get fewer shots. Fine, but that does nothing to solve the problem. Did you think about how the behavior of tri-flare users might change to accomodate this? Is or is not 4 shots from a tri-flare enough to destroy almost every ship in the game? All you are going to change is the ammount of time the flare-users spend out hunting before fleeing back to the safety of the base for reloads. Most players will still be 'Thunderclawed' because like it or not, some of the better players in the game use the tri-flare.
Let them reload, what do I care if they reload. The most important thing is that I didnt lose a ship. But if they want to waste their time travelling up and down for ammunition, then please let them. It would be even better if there wasnt a station i nevery sector, just to discourage this behaviour, but like stated before, that is a problem for later. And since the devs were intended to make the universe bigger, they might have already calculated that problem in.
No 4 shots from a triflare is not enough to kill a ship, 4 direct hits is yes, but if you can score 4 direct shots with a tri flare rocket without the usage of the rammingtechnique, then my god I want to congratulate you, since most good tri flare non rammers need 6 - 7 shots. Also, in real world, and in the game, time is money. If you see tri flare valk A go to B then you go to C, if you dont feel sure about being able to outrun them.
You haven't addressed the underlying problems at all. You've made it alot easier for an experienced player to survive a tri-flare attack, but most of our experienced players claim that the can avoid Sunflares already. That isn't really the problem, and even if it was, you've done very little to change the dynamic of experienced vs. n00b combats and n00b vs. n00b combats.
Yes most of them can avoid sunflares. But they cant avoid all shots. From 16 shots I can avoid 10 - 12, but the 4 others hit me. If you draw the same conclusion for 4 shots and they use the same chances, then only 1 will hit, and I am able to survive 1.
Isnt it the reason to put in a small obstacle to keep newbies interested in the game. What was your chance of dodging a tach when you were a newbie? What was the chance of you dodging a level 2 rocket when you were a newbie? What was your chance of dodging a swarm when you ere a newbie? Almost nada, zilch, riente, niks, noppes, rien, nothing. But it is the devs intended SKILL objective that makes you able to avoide them if you are a vet or a semi vet or to say it in plain words: experienced. So it will give newbies the drive to go on and learn to try and dodge them. It will make vets interested in finding new ways to shoot them to increase chances of hitting with them. "an example of this is the boost rocket, and if used in a non ramming way, I have nothing against it"
And lastly, your solution is cludgy. It just doesn't feel right to put a weapon in a slot and get 12 ammo with it, and then put another of the same weapon in another of the same type of slot and you get no free ammo with it. Aren't the weapons and the slots the same size whether or mount one first or one second? It feels 'gamey', and while I'm sure you could make up some sort of backstory to explain it, ultimately its always going to be psychologically unsatisfying. It's ok to have 'It's just a game explanations' from time to time, but ideally you want to avoid those ever coming into the mind of the player. You want to players to naturally emmerse themselves into your universe, not be constantly reminded that it's 'just a game'. It's just not good design.
Not really, it can maybe look cludgy to you, but who states that every port contains place for sunports and rockets. Who says that they arent just the ports itself and that the middle one is the port and a load of rockets. And there is no possibility to add more ammo to them no matter how many ports you use since they are linked with each other and the mass of the ship wont let it "conform your mass induced proposal from some months ago". I dont know, Im just giving a possible solution, and I dont give a thing about the underlying reasoning, as long as the consequence is beneficial and possible to be explained by the simple answer: this is vendetta[TM] not real life.
And even if it does seem gamey, it is a possible placeholder for a more permanent solution, if they ever arise. Any solution is better then none, because like gthang stated in one of his previous posts and a view that I share is that this test is more a spacequakeversion then somethign else, and that the flares in their present form just add to this view.
cheers
on a side-note: neither "to nerf", "to nerve" nor "to nerph" are listed in the dictionary to be used in the way it is used here.
it is an entirely new word (i.e. a verb like "to google", which, as opposed to the one in question, made it into the dictionaries) and is derived, if i am not mistaken, from the toy weapon manufacturer "Nerf".
be that as it may, the orthography in this special case is more than sketchy, i dare say.
it is an entirely new word (i.e. a verb like "to google", which, as opposed to the one in question, made it into the dictionaries) and is derived, if i am not mistaken, from the toy weapon manufacturer "Nerf".
be that as it may, the orthography in this special case is more than sketchy, i dare say.
NERF makes toys that are supposebly 100% safe, can't be used to harm anyone ever.
I'd say nerfing a ship or weapon is more or less self explaining.
side note aside, to the discussion about flares and gauss, give it a rest will ya. to quote incarnate directly,
"For the basic direction of the game.. the concern is not about whether the "Valk" is unbalanced or how many Sunflares should be carried. A lot of these are concepts that are mostly based in the framework of the existing "Test" game, much of which was only created to give some purpose to testing the engine. Some of these things will remain, and have their ramifications, but
---the core of the game is based around in the interactions of the Mission System, Dynamic Economy, and Faction System."---
(thats straight out of his direction of vendetta thread) I've seperated the last and most important sentence from the quote, lets not worry about things that are probably not even going to exist in the final game.
I'd say nerfing a ship or weapon is more or less self explaining.
side note aside, to the discussion about flares and gauss, give it a rest will ya. to quote incarnate directly,
"For the basic direction of the game.. the concern is not about whether the "Valk" is unbalanced or how many Sunflares should be carried. A lot of these are concepts that are mostly based in the framework of the existing "Test" game, much of which was only created to give some purpose to testing the engine. Some of these things will remain, and have their ramifications, but
---the core of the game is based around in the interactions of the Mission System, Dynamic Economy, and Faction System."---
(thats straight out of his direction of vendetta thread) I've seperated the last and most important sentence from the quote, lets not worry about things that are probably not even going to exist in the final game.
Hmmm, really what would solve all these problems would be making flare speed unaffected by ship velocity, or have a decreased affect by ship velocity. What would this solve?
A)Tri-flare ramming would be harder to pull off; the part that makes it especially hard is the speed, pulling it off with the default speed would be hard. This solves the vet problem.
B)A Newbie will still have a bit of trouble, but if they have killed some 75 and hopefull some 150 bounty bots they could possibly dodge some mediocre to newbie rammers.
A)Tri-flare ramming would be harder to pull off; the part that makes it especially hard is the speed, pulling it off with the default speed would be hard. This solves the vet problem.
B)A Newbie will still have a bit of trouble, but if they have killed some 75 and hopefull some 150 bounty bots they could possibly dodge some mediocre to newbie rammers.
no, that does not make sense.
if you have moving system (your ship) and fire a weapon (accelerating something), the weapon fired would logically have the speed of the ship relative to the sector added to the speed of the projectile.
also, this has been suggested (and disapproved of) before. however, there is no search feature, thus we can't blame you :)
if you have moving system (your ship) and fire a weapon (accelerating something), the weapon fired would logically have the speed of the ship relative to the sector added to the speed of the projectile.
also, this has been suggested (and disapproved of) before. however, there is no search feature, thus we can't blame you :)
The solution to flares is to improve other weapons. After practicing on 250 and 350 bots for a few days with rails, I'd say that they can beat flares. Gauss can easily beat flares. However, tachys and gravs both need a boost. Tachyon blaster should have the reload speed decreased, meaning more shots per second. Graviton blaster should have its energy decreased by maybe 4/shot and its physical speed increased to 210m/s. Phased should have its energy decreased so that you can run 2 with no net power drain on a fast-charge. Ion should have its energy decreased so that you can run 2 with no net power drain on a medium battery.
Thank you roguelazer, for posting something useful. I like that as a solution as well, making other weapons more capable to deal with gauss and flares so that weapons arent massive unbalanced leaps.