Forums » Suggestions
Okay, and now I agree with SirCamps. What's the world coming to?
I still don't think our "bombers" would even be very good at the job if they had something to "bomb." Most of their weapons, aside from the avalon, are just beefed up versions of S-port weapons. Even if they did have a purpose, I predict that their low health and general lack of weapon ports will make them just as poor against cap. ships as they are against fighters. They need something more.
While it does make some sense that a fighter be able to beat a bomber, it would be nice if there was at least some semblance of skill involved in doing it. Being able to kill a bomber most of the time and being able to kill a bomber with impunity are two different things. We're going to need to cross back over that line at some point.
While it does make some sense that a fighter be able to beat a bomber, it would be nice if there was at least some semblance of skill involved in doing it. Being able to kill a bomber most of the time and being able to kill a bomber with impunity are two different things. We're going to need to cross back over that line at some point.
"Okay, and now I agree with SirCamps. What's the world coming to?"
That's funny. Now, I don't. I agree more with Magus. SirCamps got lost again in theoretical models of what he thinks Vendetta should be like based on what he thinks WWII air combat was like, all of which ignores the more fundamental area of what Vendetta actually is like.
That's funny. Now, I don't. I agree more with Magus. SirCamps got lost again in theoretical models of what he thinks Vendetta should be like based on what he thinks WWII air combat was like, all of which ignores the more fundamental area of what Vendetta actually is like.
"That's funny. Now, I don't. I agree more with Magus."
-YAY! What do I win?
-YAY! What do I win?
Sorry, Celebrim. I'd been at the thread all day, and was too tired to get involved in another flamewar before I went to sleep. Okay, I'm rested and ready to put up a fight.
So clarify your point for me if you will:
You agree with SirCamps, except that you don't agree with him. Actually, you agree more with Magus. Except that we're all wrong and you're right, except that you neglect to say how.
We're using WWII air war analogies because they're the closest thing to Vendetta we have. Close-range, personal combat in single-pilot craft which operate largely independent of moment-to-moment exterior command. It may be an ill-fitting analogy, but it's the best one we've got and unless you can offer something closer, I'm not about to stop using it.
I agree with Camps and Roguelazer in reference to the proposed roles of fighters, if not the material examples he gave. A battle group should be intra-dependent, and individual roles interdependent so as to encourage players to take jobs that need to be done instead of just the jobs that are the most glorious.
So clarify your point for me if you will:
You agree with SirCamps, except that you don't agree with him. Actually, you agree more with Magus. Except that we're all wrong and you're right, except that you neglect to say how.
We're using WWII air war analogies because they're the closest thing to Vendetta we have. Close-range, personal combat in single-pilot craft which operate largely independent of moment-to-moment exterior command. It may be an ill-fitting analogy, but it's the best one we've got and unless you can offer something closer, I'm not about to stop using it.
I agree with Camps and Roguelazer in reference to the proposed roles of fighters, if not the material examples he gave. A battle group should be intra-dependent, and individual roles interdependent so as to encourage players to take jobs that need to be done instead of just the jobs that are the most glorious.
<Celebrim> SirCamps got lost again in theoretical models of what he thinks Vendetta should be like based on what he thinks WWII air combat was like, all of which ignores the more fundamental area of what Vendetta actually is like.
----------------------
What Vendetta is actually like... Well, we're talking idealistically here, what Vendetta *should* be--not what Vendetta is. What is it right now? Everyone's going around with relatively unprotected ships and huge guns with enough firepower to blow the crap out of any user several times over. We lack large sectors, ships whose role it is to supply others ("medic" ships), and the scope of combat focuses on the individual instead of the squad.
However, it's useless to debate what Vendetta is, unless we are grossly misreading the reality of the situation, which I think we are not. We all agree that there is something missing in regard to the current "heavy" ships in Vendetta.
Celebrim, since you disagree with my read of proposed ship roles, I'm wondering how you think different ships should play out in a combat ecosystem (capital ships as BoOs for small craft and destroy fighters, fighters to attack bombers and transports, bombers to attack transports and capital ships, "medic" ships to keep frigate healthy, fighter hunter-killers (gunboats) to kill fighters, etc.).
I use the WW2 analogy, like Ctishman said, because it fits nicely and is probably the most equivalent real-world example.
Ctishman please don't flame. Be Nice,™ like I asked.
----------------------
What Vendetta is actually like... Well, we're talking idealistically here, what Vendetta *should* be--not what Vendetta is. What is it right now? Everyone's going around with relatively unprotected ships and huge guns with enough firepower to blow the crap out of any user several times over. We lack large sectors, ships whose role it is to supply others ("medic" ships), and the scope of combat focuses on the individual instead of the squad.
However, it's useless to debate what Vendetta is, unless we are grossly misreading the reality of the situation, which I think we are not. We all agree that there is something missing in regard to the current "heavy" ships in Vendetta.
Celebrim, since you disagree with my read of proposed ship roles, I'm wondering how you think different ships should play out in a combat ecosystem (capital ships as BoOs for small craft and destroy fighters, fighters to attack bombers and transports, bombers to attack transports and capital ships, "medic" ships to keep frigate healthy, fighter hunter-killers (gunboats) to kill fighters, etc.).
I use the WW2 analogy, like Ctishman said, because it fits nicely and is probably the most equivalent real-world example.
Ctishman please don't flame. Be Nice,™ like I asked.
You know, it may be easier to implement a point defense system than people may be thinking... anybody remember SSBM? The credits? What if you could have something like that going on while you were flying? Ie. you move over a missile with your mouse, it targets and blows up. Fun, too. Maybe impractical.
I don't see why we necessarily need an analogy. Why do we need to bring the game down to the level of WWII? Why can't we allow guild to dare to be different and innovative. There is no shortage of WWII style sims out there. I like Vendetta's combat model particularly because it is so different from any other game I have ever played. Lets keep it that way. If I wanted to play a space combat game that simulates WWII, I have a dusty old copy of XWing vs. Tie Fighter that I can pull out.
Okay, but the game's model is probably a topic for another thread. Wanna start one?
I don't see why we necessarily need an analogy either. But if we are going to have an analogy, we could do just as well by comparing the ships in the game to the characters in a game like Street Fighter II or Soulcaliber II. The advantage of such an analogy is that it doesn't get us lost in irrelevant arguements (well it might, but I hope not), because the analogy is sufficiently different from the thing it represents that hopefully the focus is on the really important simularities and not on superficial simularities.
I'm proposed several combat ecosystems before. I have no idea what the devs want in a combat ecosystem. All my specific combat ecosystems depend on several things - like armor and electronics - which aren't and for all I know won't be implemented. So there is no need to go into any of them. However, all my models assume that Valkyries and Prometheus's are part of the same family of predators and are no different than say Taki and Nightmare or Chun Li and Zangief. My model assumes that things that might correspond to what you are calling 'bombers' in your model are represented by things which are truly fundametally different from all the ships we have now, and not merely different only in a few numbers.
But most of all this talk of 'bomber' is just confusing the issue. It's just a word. It doesn't mean anything. I see it as a term applied after the design to label it, not as a term which guides the design.
I could populate the model with all sorts of ships, but there is no reason, based on the breadth of the possible designs, to not have ships like the Valk and the Prom somewhat balanced against each other. In point of fact, the Prom is actually poorly equipped in a anti-capital ship role as the model exists at present anyway, so anyone primarily arguing for that role needs to discuss seriously how the capital ship model needs to change before discussing anything else.
If you will look at the part of SirCamps post I most agreed with, it was the part were he actually made specific suggestions on how to accomplish his goals. Likewise, when he stopped doing that, and then Magus criticized SirCamps drift back to arguing a theoretical model, my opinion was more reflected by Magus than SirCamps.
I'm proposed several combat ecosystems before. I have no idea what the devs want in a combat ecosystem. All my specific combat ecosystems depend on several things - like armor and electronics - which aren't and for all I know won't be implemented. So there is no need to go into any of them. However, all my models assume that Valkyries and Prometheus's are part of the same family of predators and are no different than say Taki and Nightmare or Chun Li and Zangief. My model assumes that things that might correspond to what you are calling 'bombers' in your model are represented by things which are truly fundametally different from all the ships we have now, and not merely different only in a few numbers.
But most of all this talk of 'bomber' is just confusing the issue. It's just a word. It doesn't mean anything. I see it as a term applied after the design to label it, not as a term which guides the design.
I could populate the model with all sorts of ships, but there is no reason, based on the breadth of the possible designs, to not have ships like the Valk and the Prom somewhat balanced against each other. In point of fact, the Prom is actually poorly equipped in a anti-capital ship role as the model exists at present anyway, so anyone primarily arguing for that role needs to discuss seriously how the capital ship model needs to change before discussing anything else.
If you will look at the part of SirCamps post I most agreed with, it was the part were he actually made specific suggestions on how to accomplish his goals. Likewise, when he stopped doing that, and then Magus criticized SirCamps drift back to arguing a theoretical model, my opinion was more reflected by Magus than SirCamps.
Are we also forgetting that in space, size doesn't matter for agility? There's *no such thing as air resistance*. It's all in the thrusters and engines, boys.
Size does matter because of mass*. Just warding off the inevitable preemptive flame strike. Thank me later.
*Yes yes, I know that size is not mathematically tied to mass in any way. Generally speaking though, bigger =more material at a given mass than a smaller vehicle of a similar or identical material.
*Yes yes, I know that size is not mathematically tied to mass in any way. Generally speaking though, bigger =more material at a given mass than a smaller vehicle of a similar or identical material.
Heh, i wasn't too sure about mass, so thanks.
I said later, dammit! ;)
Technically it *is* later. :P
Dammit, you're right!
Just curious...
Does anyone strongly disagree with a fighter countering bomber countering capital ship system? And when I say *counter* I don't necessarily mean *own*. I mean *is noticably better than while fighting against*. I don't dispute that the current ship balance needs work; I just think that it doesn't need a total overhaul.
As in any RPG, the majority of players will naturally gravitate toward whatever they feel is the quickest and easiest way to accomplish their goal. In Vendetta, that goal is often the destruction of some other ship, hence the tri-flare valk's popularity. There's no way around this, really - I don't think the devs have time to create perfect balance. There is always going to be one ship configuration that is most deadly for its ease of use.
So instead of trying for perfect balance, why not just make it so that you simply can't accomplish missions with one ship type? Lower level missions can be run solo, but upper level ones would require the destruction of an NPC or player battle group, which would necessitate a battle group of your own. Ten tri-flare valks can't (or shouldn't) be able to do much against a frigate and its escort, but six tri-flares, three bombers and a support ship should.
My main point, which was lost in the ramble:
The current balance needs work. Instead of trying to tweak it to perfection, however, I think that the game should work more towards forcing mixed groups - make it so that only heavy bomber type ships such as a beefed prom can take down frigates, and make frigates or other large ships central to most medium to high level missions.
Does anyone strongly disagree with a fighter countering bomber countering capital ship system? And when I say *counter* I don't necessarily mean *own*. I mean *is noticably better than while fighting against*. I don't dispute that the current ship balance needs work; I just think that it doesn't need a total overhaul.
As in any RPG, the majority of players will naturally gravitate toward whatever they feel is the quickest and easiest way to accomplish their goal. In Vendetta, that goal is often the destruction of some other ship, hence the tri-flare valk's popularity. There's no way around this, really - I don't think the devs have time to create perfect balance. There is always going to be one ship configuration that is most deadly for its ease of use.
So instead of trying for perfect balance, why not just make it so that you simply can't accomplish missions with one ship type? Lower level missions can be run solo, but upper level ones would require the destruction of an NPC or player battle group, which would necessitate a battle group of your own. Ten tri-flare valks can't (or shouldn't) be able to do much against a frigate and its escort, but six tri-flares, three bombers and a support ship should.
My main point, which was lost in the ramble:
The current balance needs work. Instead of trying to tweak it to perfection, however, I think that the game should work more towards forcing mixed groups - make it so that only heavy bomber type ships such as a beefed prom can take down frigates, and make frigates or other large ships central to most medium to high level missions.
"Does anyone strongly disagree with a fighter countering bomber countering capital ship system?"
-Yes, and if you read the thread you would know why.
-Yes, and if you read the thread you would know why.
nice post
"Ten tri-flare valks can't (or shouldn't) be able to do much against a frigate and its escort, but six tri-flares, three bombers and a support ship should."
the key is the "shouldn't"
(cuz valks really pwn the capital ship! weeee. most ships pwn frig, but that's offtopic)
"Ten tri-flare valks can't (or shouldn't) be able to do much against a frigate and its escort, but six tri-flares, three bombers and a support ship should."
the key is the "shouldn't"
(cuz valks really pwn the capital ship! weeee. most ships pwn frig, but that's offtopic)
<<Off-topic>>
"cuz valks really pwn the capital ship! weeee. most ships pwn frig, but that's offtopic"
Thats because it doesn't move... I find DEFBOT a lot more difficult... So its not a really good idea to use a Frigate as a example in this debate. its a stationary object, Anything from a far enough distance can take it out.
"cuz valks really pwn the capital ship! weeee. most ships pwn frig, but that's offtopic"
Thats because it doesn't move... I find DEFBOT a lot more difficult... So its not a really good idea to use a Frigate as a example in this debate. its a stationary object, Anything from a far enough distance can take it out.