Forums » Suggestions
Jumble of sugestions
- split engine/battery into powerplant/thrusters/battery (or at the very least, rename battery to powerplant)
This sounds a little too complicated for something that is supposed to appeal to a broad range of gamers. If anything I'd rather see each ship come with their own propietary engine group. It would make each ship more unique by offering each one a different characteristic beside simply acceleration and agility. Although I must say, having a separate battery for weapons would improve combat by a lot IMO. Or some type of revision to the engines where you don't stop dead in your tracks while firing (i.e. efficient/fast combo).
- Shields: uses energy to recharge; perhaps some lesser amount to stay charged, that keep-charged amount dependent on shield level.. Energy shields are cut into before hull damage... perhaps just lessens hull damage depending on which shield is installed, and by shield level in use
I never liked the idea of shields. I don't think they're necessary in Vendetta, since all the ships are already fairly strong. Essentially the current hull system IS what we have for shields. I guess what people want more is a pretty little blue flashing effect when you get hit. If shields are planned, I'd highly recommend halving the current hull levels to compensate for that increase in strength. Having uber strong ships would be boring for combat.
- perhaps big ships could have more then one (set of) thrusters
I like this idea. Be required to purchase two engines for a dual-engine ship.
- carriers perhaps? very small, fast, manuverable fighters might not have warp capabilities, but could dock in larger ships.
I like this idea. The current Frigate has a small docking area, but there's no word yet on whether players will be able to use it, or whether even bigger ships are planned.
-- cargo holds could be allocated to hold fighters; some ships might have docking bays; deploying fighters could therefor take differnt times
I like this idea. I've always hated having to jump into a bus just to move my ships around from station to station. Having a large transport vessel that is capable of carrying ships around would be nice.
This sounds a little too complicated for something that is supposed to appeal to a broad range of gamers. If anything I'd rather see each ship come with their own propietary engine group. It would make each ship more unique by offering each one a different characteristic beside simply acceleration and agility. Although I must say, having a separate battery for weapons would improve combat by a lot IMO. Or some type of revision to the engines where you don't stop dead in your tracks while firing (i.e. efficient/fast combo).
- Shields: uses energy to recharge; perhaps some lesser amount to stay charged, that keep-charged amount dependent on shield level.. Energy shields are cut into before hull damage... perhaps just lessens hull damage depending on which shield is installed, and by shield level in use
I never liked the idea of shields. I don't think they're necessary in Vendetta, since all the ships are already fairly strong. Essentially the current hull system IS what we have for shields. I guess what people want more is a pretty little blue flashing effect when you get hit. If shields are planned, I'd highly recommend halving the current hull levels to compensate for that increase in strength. Having uber strong ships would be boring for combat.
- perhaps big ships could have more then one (set of) thrusters
I like this idea. Be required to purchase two engines for a dual-engine ship.
- carriers perhaps? very small, fast, manuverable fighters might not have warp capabilities, but could dock in larger ships.
I like this idea. The current Frigate has a small docking area, but there's no word yet on whether players will be able to use it, or whether even bigger ships are planned.
-- cargo holds could be allocated to hold fighters; some ships might have docking bays; deploying fighters could therefor take differnt times
I like this idea. I've always hated having to jump into a bus just to move my ships around from station to station. Having a large transport vessel that is capable of carrying ships around would be nice.
Sory if these have all be discussed before... But here are some random thoughts/ideas. Some come from wincommander, Trade Wars 2002 (ah, BBSs), or no where in paticular.
- split engine/battery into powerplant/thrusters/battery (or at the very least, rename battery to powerplant)
- Shields: uses energy to recharge; perhaps some lesser amount to stay charged, that keep-charged amount dependent on shield level.. Energy shields are cut into before hull damage... perhaps just lessens hull damage depending on which shield is installed, and by shield level in use
- weapons have different reactions with shield {type, level}
- armor?
- power distribution: provide controls to allocate power from the powerplant to weapons/shields/thrusters
- ship computer - automate intellegently power dist; track multiple targets; maps.
- thrusters should provide a max /force/, not a max /speed/... bigger ships should go slower with the same thrusters/powerplant
- perhaps big ships could have more then one (set of) thrusters
-- for that matter, more then one powerplant
- it should be possible to have impossible to fly/jump to warp combos of hulls/parts, though the interface might not allow it (or at least warn you about it)
- carriers perhaps? very small, fast, manuverable fighters might not have warp capabilities, but could dock in larger ships.
-- cargo holds could be allocated to hold fighters; some ships might have docking bays; deploying fighters could therefor take differnt times
- wormholes could perhaps have 'length'
-- you would require larger ships for longer 'holes
-- add in 'warp engines' (or 'wormhole shields') that change max length
- when trading, remember how much the stuff was purchased for - give XP depending on % edge. Haggle over prices perhaps? ... at only /some/ stations, depending on likedness of player....
You should not need "full power" to jump to warp. If a battery with X max power can do it, and a different battery happens to have X+Y max power, with the same engine, why would you suddently need more power? Larger ships should need more power
- split engine/battery into powerplant/thrusters/battery (or at the very least, rename battery to powerplant)
- Shields: uses energy to recharge; perhaps some lesser amount to stay charged, that keep-charged amount dependent on shield level.. Energy shields are cut into before hull damage... perhaps just lessens hull damage depending on which shield is installed, and by shield level in use
- weapons have different reactions with shield {type, level}
- armor?
- power distribution: provide controls to allocate power from the powerplant to weapons/shields/thrusters
- ship computer - automate intellegently power dist; track multiple targets; maps.
- thrusters should provide a max /force/, not a max /speed/... bigger ships should go slower with the same thrusters/powerplant
- perhaps big ships could have more then one (set of) thrusters
-- for that matter, more then one powerplant
- it should be possible to have impossible to fly/jump to warp combos of hulls/parts, though the interface might not allow it (or at least warn you about it)
- carriers perhaps? very small, fast, manuverable fighters might not have warp capabilities, but could dock in larger ships.
-- cargo holds could be allocated to hold fighters; some ships might have docking bays; deploying fighters could therefor take differnt times
- wormholes could perhaps have 'length'
-- you would require larger ships for longer 'holes
-- add in 'warp engines' (or 'wormhole shields') that change max length
- when trading, remember how much the stuff was purchased for - give XP depending on % edge. Haggle over prices perhaps? ... at only /some/ stations, depending on likedness of player....
You should not need "full power" to jump to warp. If a battery with X max power can do it, and a different battery happens to have X+Y max power, with the same engine, why would you suddently need more power? Larger ships should need more power
"split engine/battery into powerplant/thrusters/battery (or at the very least, rename battery to powerplant)"
Been suggested several times. I know the devs have entertained the idea, but I can't tell you if it will ever happen.
"Shields: uses energy to recharge; perhaps some lesser amount to stay charged, that keep-charged amount dependent on shield level.. Energy shields are cut into before hull damage... perhaps just lessens hull damage depending on which shield is installed, and by shield level in use"
Like most features from other games, it has been extensively discussed. Both systems have thier proponents. I'm in favor of the latter one you mention.
"weapons have different reactions with shield {type, level}"
Discussed once before. I might look for the thread and bump it.
"armor?"
Discussed extensively by me. I might look for the thread and bump it.
"power distribution: provide controls to allocate power from the powerplant to weapons/shields/thrusters"
Been mentioned. At present, I can't see the use for it. Unlike say Star Wars games, changing the way power is distributed would have no real effect on your ship's performance.
"ship computer - automate intellegently power dist; track multiple targets; maps."
Has been mentioned in several different contexts. Again, at present there is no real use for it.
"thrusters should provide a max /force/, not a max /speed/... bigger ships should go slower with the same thrusters/powerplant"
Why? Thrusters already provide force, and bigger ships already have a higher mass. The result is slower acceleration for the bigger ships, which effectively means slower speeds. Speed is capped on all ships for gameplay reasons.
"perhaps big ships could have more then one (set of) thrusters"
Medium sized, multi-thruster/powerplant ships have been discussed extensively and represent my second oldest suggestion. Several other people have made similar requests. It's unknown what the dev's opinion on this is, but it is known that they plan bigger ships than the ones at present.
"for that matter, more then one powerplant"
For game play reasons, number of thrusters needs to equal number of powerplants.
"carriers perhaps? very small, fast, manuverable fighters might not have warp capabilities, but could dock in larger ships. -- cargo holds could be allocated to hold fighters; some ships might have docking bays; deploying fighters could therefor take differnt times "
Have you seen the 'Frigate'? This is probably planned in some form.
"wormholes could perhaps have 'length'"
A good feature for single player games. A bad one for multiplayer games.
"you would require larger ships for longer 'holes"
Oh, that's what you mean. I keep trying to get people behind the idea of fuel and your idea is similar, but don't expect alot of people to back it.
"add in 'warp engines' (or 'wormhole shields') that change max length"
A variation on my fuel efficient engines idea. I'll say this, your idea is probably easier to sell to the community than my 'fuel' idea and it accomplishes much the same purpose. I'd still prefer fuel, but I'd prefer your idea to nothing.
"when trading, remember how much the stuff was purchased for - give XP depending on % edge. Haggle over prices perhaps? ... at only /some/ stations, depending on likedness of player...."
The first suggestion is one which is made in another thread on the current page.
Hopefully thier will eventually be NPC's in stations.
"You should not need "full power" to jump to warp. If a battery with X max power can do it, and a different battery happens to have X+Y max power, with the same engine, why would you suddently need more power? Larger ships should need more power"
This 'feature' exists solely to prevent abusive behavior. Several people have suggested your change. It's unknown whether the current situation is permanent or whether future changes in navigation might make the whole issue mute.
All in all, a pretty good set of random ideas. You've managed to mention in brief about half of what we end up arguing about.
Been suggested several times. I know the devs have entertained the idea, but I can't tell you if it will ever happen.
"Shields: uses energy to recharge; perhaps some lesser amount to stay charged, that keep-charged amount dependent on shield level.. Energy shields are cut into before hull damage... perhaps just lessens hull damage depending on which shield is installed, and by shield level in use"
Like most features from other games, it has been extensively discussed. Both systems have thier proponents. I'm in favor of the latter one you mention.
"weapons have different reactions with shield {type, level}"
Discussed once before. I might look for the thread and bump it.
"armor?"
Discussed extensively by me. I might look for the thread and bump it.
"power distribution: provide controls to allocate power from the powerplant to weapons/shields/thrusters"
Been mentioned. At present, I can't see the use for it. Unlike say Star Wars games, changing the way power is distributed would have no real effect on your ship's performance.
"ship computer - automate intellegently power dist; track multiple targets; maps."
Has been mentioned in several different contexts. Again, at present there is no real use for it.
"thrusters should provide a max /force/, not a max /speed/... bigger ships should go slower with the same thrusters/powerplant"
Why? Thrusters already provide force, and bigger ships already have a higher mass. The result is slower acceleration for the bigger ships, which effectively means slower speeds. Speed is capped on all ships for gameplay reasons.
"perhaps big ships could have more then one (set of) thrusters"
Medium sized, multi-thruster/powerplant ships have been discussed extensively and represent my second oldest suggestion. Several other people have made similar requests. It's unknown what the dev's opinion on this is, but it is known that they plan bigger ships than the ones at present.
"for that matter, more then one powerplant"
For game play reasons, number of thrusters needs to equal number of powerplants.
"carriers perhaps? very small, fast, manuverable fighters might not have warp capabilities, but could dock in larger ships. -- cargo holds could be allocated to hold fighters; some ships might have docking bays; deploying fighters could therefor take differnt times "
Have you seen the 'Frigate'? This is probably planned in some form.
"wormholes could perhaps have 'length'"
A good feature for single player games. A bad one for multiplayer games.
"you would require larger ships for longer 'holes"
Oh, that's what you mean. I keep trying to get people behind the idea of fuel and your idea is similar, but don't expect alot of people to back it.
"add in 'warp engines' (or 'wormhole shields') that change max length"
A variation on my fuel efficient engines idea. I'll say this, your idea is probably easier to sell to the community than my 'fuel' idea and it accomplishes much the same purpose. I'd still prefer fuel, but I'd prefer your idea to nothing.
"when trading, remember how much the stuff was purchased for - give XP depending on % edge. Haggle over prices perhaps? ... at only /some/ stations, depending on likedness of player...."
The first suggestion is one which is made in another thread on the current page.
Hopefully thier will eventually be NPC's in stations.
"You should not need "full power" to jump to warp. If a battery with X max power can do it, and a different battery happens to have X+Y max power, with the same engine, why would you suddently need more power? Larger ships should need more power"
This 'feature' exists solely to prevent abusive behavior. Several people have suggested your change. It's unknown whether the current situation is permanent or whether future changes in navigation might make the whole issue mute.
All in all, a pretty good set of random ideas. You've managed to mention in brief about half of what we end up arguing about.
I like the big ship/big hole idea.
I, too like the bigger/smaller wormhole issues.
Why not think of the technology of wormholes like this? It's total BS, but plausible enough to work in vendetta's soft sci-fi storyline. Here goes:
The wormhole is a tube with two points that simultaneously have no distance and infinite distance between them. Which is to say that Science™ has no idea how they work, just that they work. So anyhow, your ship must generate a bubble of shields that stretches wall-to-wall in the tube to protect itself from bouncing off the "walls" (yeah yeah, BS, I know). The bigger the tube, the bigger the ship that can transit, but the bigger the required bubble.
Larger ships could be restricted to larger, central wormholes. In fact, these wormholes are so big that fighters can't maintain a large enough "bubble" to safely travel through them, and thus must be docked in a carrier ship (be it a government carrier or a public toll ferry) for the transit.
Why not think of the technology of wormholes like this? It's total BS, but plausible enough to work in vendetta's soft sci-fi storyline. Here goes:
The wormhole is a tube with two points that simultaneously have no distance and infinite distance between them. Which is to say that Science™ has no idea how they work, just that they work. So anyhow, your ship must generate a bubble of shields that stretches wall-to-wall in the tube to protect itself from bouncing off the "walls" (yeah yeah, BS, I know). The bigger the tube, the bigger the ship that can transit, but the bigger the required bubble.
Larger ships could be restricted to larger, central wormholes. In fact, these wormholes are so big that fighters can't maintain a large enough "bubble" to safely travel through them, and thus must be docked in a carrier ship (be it a government carrier or a public toll ferry) for the transit.
I still think the "shield" concept is just something people want to be able to give themselves a sense just like every other Sci-Fi game they have ever played. If you were to make a cool ID4-esque sheild effect and call the hull a shield half the complaints would be reduced. It might make sense to give heavies the ability to sit still and charge their hull from their battery as long as there is no motion and no weapons are being fired. It might actually be a good idea. But it's not advisable for fighters. Possibly something for the long-forgotten toys thread.
The bigger/longer wormhole idea I'm not too fond of. I thought Vendetta was supposed to be a game that was focused on independant fighter based relationships. Making cap-ships so critical just seems like it detracts from that. Celebrim mentioned a while ago the difference between strategic speed and tactical speed and how fighters need to have a higher tactical speed but can afford to have a much lower strategic speed. Basically, much less economical for traveling over very long distances in a fighter versus a cap-ship that you could park in. It's not exactly feasable in our tiny 18 sector universe, but once it gets bigger it would be a nice feature. In order to travel long distances one would have to purchase docking rights in a transport-frigate and travel within its hull. This would provide a role for cap-ships without detracting too much from the fighter-based style of play.
The bigger/longer wormhole idea I'm not too fond of. I thought Vendetta was supposed to be a game that was focused on independant fighter based relationships. Making cap-ships so critical just seems like it detracts from that. Celebrim mentioned a while ago the difference between strategic speed and tactical speed and how fighters need to have a higher tactical speed but can afford to have a much lower strategic speed. Basically, much less economical for traveling over very long distances in a fighter versus a cap-ship that you could park in. It's not exactly feasable in our tiny 18 sector universe, but once it gets bigger it would be a nice feature. In order to travel long distances one would have to purchase docking rights in a transport-frigate and travel within its hull. This would provide a role for cap-ships without detracting too much from the fighter-based style of play.
Arolte: 2 comments...
1) you say that splitting engine/battery into powerplant/thrusters/battery is "too complicated"... Well, what's wrong with making games for non-hillbillies? Morons have enough entertainment already; it doesn't hurt to cater to intelligent people once in a while as well. Just my 2 cents. ;)
2) Shields do provide you with something more than just a nice blue effect when hit: they're like a second layer of hull absorbing the damage untill they're worn out, with one big plus to them: they regenerate. Right now, the smallest amount of damage I take stays. When you got shields, you can effectively take a hit yet not take damage. Handy for absorbing blast damage from a nearby exploding ship for example, or for absorbing the first couple of hits from an energy weapon right before you realise something's chewing on your shields and head the heck out of there. Especialy traders would benefit from shields and some extra automated turrets on their big cargo vessels that turn like a pregnant yak. Right now, traders are a sitting duck, and it's been like that forever.
1) you say that splitting engine/battery into powerplant/thrusters/battery is "too complicated"... Well, what's wrong with making games for non-hillbillies? Morons have enough entertainment already; it doesn't hurt to cater to intelligent people once in a while as well. Just my 2 cents. ;)
2) Shields do provide you with something more than just a nice blue effect when hit: they're like a second layer of hull absorbing the damage untill they're worn out, with one big plus to them: they regenerate. Right now, the smallest amount of damage I take stays. When you got shields, you can effectively take a hit yet not take damage. Handy for absorbing blast damage from a nearby exploding ship for example, or for absorbing the first couple of hits from an energy weapon right before you realise something's chewing on your shields and head the heck out of there. Especialy traders would benefit from shields and some extra automated turrets on their big cargo vessels that turn like a pregnant yak. Right now, traders are a sitting duck, and it's been like that forever.
"Especialy traders would benefit from shields and some extra automated turrets on their big cargo vessels that turn like a pregnant yak."
And that's where you are wrong. Regenerating shields favor the more manueverable ships, because on average in a fight, the interval between hitting a manueverable ship is larger (If it wasn't, then manueverablity wouldn't be worth anything and hull would be more important than manueverability. But we know that's not true.)
Your plan would actually make it worse on the traders, unless you more or less elimenated shields from the lightest classes of fighters (which I'd be in favor of anyway). Worse yet, you'd make sunflares even more uber against fighters, virtually elimenating the ability to kill fighters with energy weapons.
Arolte is at least in part right. At present, shields really don't do anything for gameplay, and I do think the only reason people want them is because every other space shooter has them.
However, where I think there is a need for shields is for ships which are much more unmanueverable than the most unmanueverable ships we have now. Even in the small range of manueverablity we have, we are really pushing the limit. A high manueverability ship has almost an absolute advantage over a low manueverability ship right now. If we had bigger ships with lower manueverability, they would be pure targets and unable to defend themselves. Shields and armor - and I mean specifically the 'right' kind of shields - would allow those targets to absorb enough punishment to be able to defend themselves. Specifically, if armor reduced the ammount of damage by some absolute ammount per hit, then you couldn't blaze away with Tachyon's and hope to do significant damage to your target. That would stop some (but not all) of the cheesier ways people currently take out for example the current capital ship.
And that's where you are wrong. Regenerating shields favor the more manueverable ships, because on average in a fight, the interval between hitting a manueverable ship is larger (If it wasn't, then manueverablity wouldn't be worth anything and hull would be more important than manueverability. But we know that's not true.)
Your plan would actually make it worse on the traders, unless you more or less elimenated shields from the lightest classes of fighters (which I'd be in favor of anyway). Worse yet, you'd make sunflares even more uber against fighters, virtually elimenating the ability to kill fighters with energy weapons.
Arolte is at least in part right. At present, shields really don't do anything for gameplay, and I do think the only reason people want them is because every other space shooter has them.
However, where I think there is a need for shields is for ships which are much more unmanueverable than the most unmanueverable ships we have now. Even in the small range of manueverablity we have, we are really pushing the limit. A high manueverability ship has almost an absolute advantage over a low manueverability ship right now. If we had bigger ships with lower manueverability, they would be pure targets and unable to defend themselves. Shields and armor - and I mean specifically the 'right' kind of shields - would allow those targets to absorb enough punishment to be able to defend themselves. Specifically, if armor reduced the ammount of damage by some absolute ammount per hit, then you couldn't blaze away with Tachyon's and hope to do significant damage to your target. That would stop some (but not all) of the cheesier ways people currently take out for example the current capital ship.
Well, Nighty, the problem when you make a game too complicated in that respect is a certain group of people will have an advantage over others. All the technicians and geeks of the game will know what combos to use, while everyone else struggles to put together a decent ship. Let me put it this way--when you buy a brand new ferrari or car, does the dealer sell the chasis, engine, wheels, suspension, etc. all separately? No. Right now in Vendetta they do, but just having two components isn't too overwhelming.
The current engines and batteries are simply there for upgrade purposes. If it gets to the point where you can tweak the hell out of your ship with thousands of different components, you're just detracting from the whole purpose of the game. You'll be sitting in the station pimpin' your ride rather than completing missions and objectives.
I think a better model to follow would be the EC-88. Each ship could come with a stock engine and battery. And I'm not talking about slapping a free gov't engine/battery on every ship. I'm talking about giving each ship their own unique stock engine and battery. And from that point on you can experiment with different ship/battery configurations by buying those upgrades. It just seems "more real" that way.
I don't know. I just think the ships could use more variation besides agility and acceleration. Giving those unique characteristics would offer easier (and more than current) customizability (is that a word?) than to split up the engine/battery components to even more parts.
As far as shields go, I'm still not convinced. I think the hull concept is fine right now. I think what would be more interesting is to have supply ships (teamwork!!) or repair bots to follow you around so you can have that sort of advantage. But slapping more layers of projectile aborbers would make combat boring.
The current engines and batteries are simply there for upgrade purposes. If it gets to the point where you can tweak the hell out of your ship with thousands of different components, you're just detracting from the whole purpose of the game. You'll be sitting in the station pimpin' your ride rather than completing missions and objectives.
I think a better model to follow would be the EC-88. Each ship could come with a stock engine and battery. And I'm not talking about slapping a free gov't engine/battery on every ship. I'm talking about giving each ship their own unique stock engine and battery. And from that point on you can experiment with different ship/battery configurations by buying those upgrades. It just seems "more real" that way.
I don't know. I just think the ships could use more variation besides agility and acceleration. Giving those unique characteristics would offer easier (and more than current) customizability (is that a word?) than to split up the engine/battery components to even more parts.
As far as shields go, I'm still not convinced. I think the hull concept is fine right now. I think what would be more interesting is to have supply ships (teamwork!!) or repair bots to follow you around so you can have that sort of advantage. But slapping more layers of projectile aborbers would make combat boring.
Celebrim:
Good point; I never said that small ships should have as powerful shields as big ones. In fact, the very small recon ships/fighters might have no shielding whatsoever, while big transports will have massive ones. Right now it's just too damn easy to take out a trader; he can't outmaneuver you, hence he's a sitting duck. A tradeship should be able to defend itself against a lone raider. Taking out a tradeship should not be something that happens every couple of minutes the way it did untill the devs made sure we gotta spend all our time on botting just to be able to fly something we can take out a trader in, but a real team endeavour that takes skill and teamwork to undertake. The mammoth should get its fangs, man! If you try to take out a trader with a tricked out ride using less than 10 small attack ships, the chances of your side winning should be slim. We don't want a game where half the population is a pirate since it's an easy way towards a high score and full pockets; we want a game where the pirates are in the minority because of the risks involved and the level of teamwork required to be a pirate. That doesn't mean we don't want any pirates at all, but I remember that before I started playing again about one of every two to three players was a noob pirate. That was just ridiculous.
Arolte:
First, I don't see nothing wrong with extreme customizability for your ships. It's not wrong for an RPG to be a little complicated. If RPGs are too hard for some people to grasp, then they should stay the hell off my gameserver and go back to watching Jerry Springer or playing Quake, coz I don't wanna deal with morons like that. Yes, in a RPG someone with more tech info will have a benefit over someone with less tech info. Just like someone with more "tech info" on FPS tactics will have the benefit over a noob playing UT2004, just like someone with more "tech info" on cars and racing will have the benefit over a noob in F1 Grand Prix, someone with more "tech info" on military aircraft and fighter jet maneuvers will have the benefit over a noob in a flightsim, etc... Even now there are people in Vendetta with more "tech info", people who pay more attention to things like speed and blast radius of missiles, energy consumption, recharge rate and damage of energy weapons etc... who have the benefit over folk like me who don't really care much for numbers and calculations. You are one of them.
Second: as far as the shields go, you wanna go with repair drones or something... Basically, you're saying the same as me, with this difference: in your case it's one layer which auto regenerates and causes your destruction if it's depleted, in my case it's one layer which auto regenerates and causes you to take permanent damage when depleted, untill the second layer is depleted as well, in which case you die. Difference between what you propose and the shields idea is that in your case someone who doesn't die will see his ship restored in mint condition after a certain amount of time necessary for the automated repairs, while in my case someone might survive, but if he's taken real damage, he will have to dock to have it repaired.
Good point; I never said that small ships should have as powerful shields as big ones. In fact, the very small recon ships/fighters might have no shielding whatsoever, while big transports will have massive ones. Right now it's just too damn easy to take out a trader; he can't outmaneuver you, hence he's a sitting duck. A tradeship should be able to defend itself against a lone raider. Taking out a tradeship should not be something that happens every couple of minutes the way it did untill the devs made sure we gotta spend all our time on botting just to be able to fly something we can take out a trader in, but a real team endeavour that takes skill and teamwork to undertake. The mammoth should get its fangs, man! If you try to take out a trader with a tricked out ride using less than 10 small attack ships, the chances of your side winning should be slim. We don't want a game where half the population is a pirate since it's an easy way towards a high score and full pockets; we want a game where the pirates are in the minority because of the risks involved and the level of teamwork required to be a pirate. That doesn't mean we don't want any pirates at all, but I remember that before I started playing again about one of every two to three players was a noob pirate. That was just ridiculous.
Arolte:
First, I don't see nothing wrong with extreme customizability for your ships. It's not wrong for an RPG to be a little complicated. If RPGs are too hard for some people to grasp, then they should stay the hell off my gameserver and go back to watching Jerry Springer or playing Quake, coz I don't wanna deal with morons like that. Yes, in a RPG someone with more tech info will have a benefit over someone with less tech info. Just like someone with more "tech info" on FPS tactics will have the benefit over a noob playing UT2004, just like someone with more "tech info" on cars and racing will have the benefit over a noob in F1 Grand Prix, someone with more "tech info" on military aircraft and fighter jet maneuvers will have the benefit over a noob in a flightsim, etc... Even now there are people in Vendetta with more "tech info", people who pay more attention to things like speed and blast radius of missiles, energy consumption, recharge rate and damage of energy weapons etc... who have the benefit over folk like me who don't really care much for numbers and calculations. You are one of them.
Second: as far as the shields go, you wanna go with repair drones or something... Basically, you're saying the same as me, with this difference: in your case it's one layer which auto regenerates and causes your destruction if it's depleted, in my case it's one layer which auto regenerates and causes you to take permanent damage when depleted, untill the second layer is depleted as well, in which case you die. Difference between what you propose and the shields idea is that in your case someone who doesn't die will see his ship restored in mint condition after a certain amount of time necessary for the automated repairs, while in my case someone might survive, but if he's taken real damage, he will have to dock to have it repaired.
>Arolte:
>First, I don't see nothing wrong with extreme customizability for your ships. It's
>not wrong for an RPG to be a little complicated. If RPGs are too hard for some
>people to grasp, then they should stay the hell off my gameserver and go back to
>watching Jerry Springer or playing Quake, coz I don't wanna deal with morons like
>that. Yes, in a RPG someone with more tech info will have a benefit over someone
Flamebait aside, you need to understand that what the devs are aiming for is a game that's a nice mix between customizability and ease of use. That's the reason we're given the option to choose between different flight models. That's the reason the HUD is so easy to use and isn't cluttered up with all kinds of extra doodads. That's the reason docking doesn't take a checklist of procedures to complete successfully. That's the reason we're not required to pull out a robotic arm and pick up cargo one by one. Get my point?
>Second: as far as the shields go, you wanna go with repair drones or something...
>Basically, you're saying the same as me, with this difference: in your case it's one
>layer which auto regenerates and causes your destruction if it's depleted, in my
>case it's one layer which auto regenerates and causes you to take permanent
>damage when depleted, untill the second layer is depleted as well, in which case
>you die. Difference between what you propose and the shields idea is that in your
See, now you've just misinterpreted what I said.
On the idea of supply ships, I was thinking that another player would need to pilot the supply ship next to a group of fighters and frigates. Because it's not heavily armed, it will need to be escorted by loyal teammates. In return, it will guarantee on-the-go repairs and rearming of weapons. Again, this goes back to the whole idea of teamwork. So you might be thinking, "Hey, who the hell would want to fly around in a crappy slow ship all day with little weapons?" Well, maybe the pilot of the supply ship gets better experience point rewards than fighter pilots.
In regards to the repair drones, I was thinking more along the lines of paying for an escort. You dock at a station, pay for a repair drone to follow you around from sector to sector, and repair you anytime you're damaged. At least until it's dead. Enemy players and bots can blow up this repair drone to prevent you from autorepairing again. It's not some type of layer of nanotech bots covering the hull that autoregenerates the hull or something. It's physically a drone that follows you around. And it's just as vulnerable to death as you are.
>First, I don't see nothing wrong with extreme customizability for your ships. It's
>not wrong for an RPG to be a little complicated. If RPGs are too hard for some
>people to grasp, then they should stay the hell off my gameserver and go back to
>watching Jerry Springer or playing Quake, coz I don't wanna deal with morons like
>that. Yes, in a RPG someone with more tech info will have a benefit over someone
Flamebait aside, you need to understand that what the devs are aiming for is a game that's a nice mix between customizability and ease of use. That's the reason we're given the option to choose between different flight models. That's the reason the HUD is so easy to use and isn't cluttered up with all kinds of extra doodads. That's the reason docking doesn't take a checklist of procedures to complete successfully. That's the reason we're not required to pull out a robotic arm and pick up cargo one by one. Get my point?
>Second: as far as the shields go, you wanna go with repair drones or something...
>Basically, you're saying the same as me, with this difference: in your case it's one
>layer which auto regenerates and causes your destruction if it's depleted, in my
>case it's one layer which auto regenerates and causes you to take permanent
>damage when depleted, untill the second layer is depleted as well, in which case
>you die. Difference between what you propose and the shields idea is that in your
See, now you've just misinterpreted what I said.
On the idea of supply ships, I was thinking that another player would need to pilot the supply ship next to a group of fighters and frigates. Because it's not heavily armed, it will need to be escorted by loyal teammates. In return, it will guarantee on-the-go repairs and rearming of weapons. Again, this goes back to the whole idea of teamwork. So you might be thinking, "Hey, who the hell would want to fly around in a crappy slow ship all day with little weapons?" Well, maybe the pilot of the supply ship gets better experience point rewards than fighter pilots.
In regards to the repair drones, I was thinking more along the lines of paying for an escort. You dock at a station, pay for a repair drone to follow you around from sector to sector, and repair you anytime you're damaged. At least until it's dead. Enemy players and bots can blow up this repair drone to prevent you from autorepairing again. It's not some type of layer of nanotech bots covering the hull that autoregenerates the hull or something. It's physically a drone that follows you around. And it's just as vulnerable to death as you are.
Arolte:
When you buy a car, no. But when you buy an aircraft yes. When you buy a weekend fishing boat yes. Boeing does not make engines and Mercury does not make boat hulls... A disel engine that a larger craft might take could be the exact same engine that would be used for emergency power at a hospital.
Things could possibly be sold in bundles (even with the bundless costing less then the sum of there parts)... Allow players to save up for the next big bundle, or buy parts one at a time, but have an overall higher cost... Unless they are reclycling parts from another ship.
Customizeability could be like macro/micro management in Civ: you can leave it up to $something_else, and you can play (and "win) the whole game like that. Or, you can tweek things yourself. Or, you could hire NPC to do the tweeks for you.
Hmm... There could potentially be illegal tweeks. You (or a NPC) could configure a dangerous tweek (or install, ie a dangerous/high performance mod) in a neutral sector. If/when you enter a patrolled sector, the illegal tweek may or may not be easily scannable.. If you need to get it repaired in a patrolled sector, then you might need to bribe the shop to do it and not turn you over to the authorities (or just undo the tweek).
Im thinking speed(?) controler for cars.. Correct me if Im wrong, but these days "ricers" are not honing out cylenders like the Fonz, but tweeking the electrical components of their cars... Easy, and cheap.... but possibly unsafe.
Or, in a similar vain, mods to make semi-auto guns into full-auto. Also (can be) easy. And from the outside (or even casual close up) inspection, identical... At least some places you can get a carry permit for semi-auto handguns, but full auto would be illegal.
I like the idea of supply ships. Kinda like carriers but not quite.. You could extend that even further:
- missle carriers; only large ports, low manuverability, possibly poor shields/armor/whatever, radar that improves 'simple' missles
- AWACS; similar to above, but improves radar for _all_ close friendly ships.. and much longer radar
Save for radar improvements, the former could be done $now, with the right ship choice... The later could just be as a "command and control" radar option you could purchase for any (large) ship.
When you buy a car, no. But when you buy an aircraft yes. When you buy a weekend fishing boat yes. Boeing does not make engines and Mercury does not make boat hulls... A disel engine that a larger craft might take could be the exact same engine that would be used for emergency power at a hospital.
Things could possibly be sold in bundles (even with the bundless costing less then the sum of there parts)... Allow players to save up for the next big bundle, or buy parts one at a time, but have an overall higher cost... Unless they are reclycling parts from another ship.
Customizeability could be like macro/micro management in Civ: you can leave it up to $something_else, and you can play (and "win) the whole game like that. Or, you can tweek things yourself. Or, you could hire NPC to do the tweeks for you.
Hmm... There could potentially be illegal tweeks. You (or a NPC) could configure a dangerous tweek (or install, ie a dangerous/high performance mod) in a neutral sector. If/when you enter a patrolled sector, the illegal tweek may or may not be easily scannable.. If you need to get it repaired in a patrolled sector, then you might need to bribe the shop to do it and not turn you over to the authorities (or just undo the tweek).
Im thinking speed(?) controler for cars.. Correct me if Im wrong, but these days "ricers" are not honing out cylenders like the Fonz, but tweeking the electrical components of their cars... Easy, and cheap.... but possibly unsafe.
Or, in a similar vain, mods to make semi-auto guns into full-auto. Also (can be) easy. And from the outside (or even casual close up) inspection, identical... At least some places you can get a carry permit for semi-auto handguns, but full auto would be illegal.
I like the idea of supply ships. Kinda like carriers but not quite.. You could extend that even further:
- missle carriers; only large ports, low manuverability, possibly poor shields/armor/whatever, radar that improves 'simple' missles
- AWACS; similar to above, but improves radar for _all_ close friendly ships.. and much longer radar
Save for radar improvements, the former could be done $now, with the right ship choice... The later could just be as a "command and control" radar option you could purchase for any (large) ship.
Instead of lots of capital ships, we can have Wormhole Gates for fighters. Say only capitals can go through main WHs. Well, a WH gate will be smaller, but still within the area of the big hole. You can charge for the gate, shut it off or on, or maybe even destroy it. This way, if the authorities are chasing a lone griefer, he tries to get out of the system but suddenly, the gate is shut off. He cannot enter the WH, and is forced to be stuck in the system until someone opens the gate. Or maybe instead of closing the gate, they could just restrict that certain ID from using it. I also think that a Capital ship should have a different wormhole animation than little ships.
I also thought of a pretty cool idea. A system made entirely of wormholes. Sort of a "Central Hub" system. This can have a huge main trading station in the middle. Assuming that sectors will be connected by things like in "Freelancer", or something of the same design, you can have sort of a pinwheel. All the wormholes are at the outside, with maybe some trade stations in the outside middle, and the main in the direct center.
I also thought of a pretty cool idea. A system made entirely of wormholes. Sort of a "Central Hub" system. This can have a huge main trading station in the middle. Assuming that sectors will be connected by things like in "Freelancer", or something of the same design, you can have sort of a pinwheel. All the wormholes are at the outside, with maybe some trade stations in the outside middle, and the main in the direct center.
I think the Drone II mission only requires you to kill seven. The Drone II AND Sentry mission requires you to kill eight. I may be wrong about the exact numbers, but I know the two have different total kills required.
Arolte: "The ideal mix between customizability and gameplay" lies different for everyone. Some people are more the hack n' slash type, some people are more the type that likes more conversation and a great storyline, and a little less fights. You seem more like the hack n' slash type; you're a good fighter, and naturally you want the game to cater to your fighting needs more than anything else. PS: no accusation here; it's only natural. If I judged you correctly, you would be more the Diabolo or Dungeon Quest type, while I'm more the Baldur's Gate or Morrowind type. Now while I do admit that pure hack n' slash seems to attract more people than a "real" RPG, this doesn't mean that a little more complicated version of the game wouldn't attract many gamers; in fact the marketing/advertising is more important in this regard than the level of complexity. Besides, there's enough Hack n' Slash out already; why not cater to the people who can't find their liking in the rest of the games? Why compete with other mediocre hack n' slash attempts when you can cater to a little more "niche" market and automatically gain the monopoly in that area?
Maybe things will remain simple, maybe things will become a bit more complicated. I for one would welcome the little more complicated version, it gives the game so much more depth. You can cater to a broad audience without dumbing it down. And it's natural for an RPG to attract the more intelligent part of the general gaming audience. While I do understand your concern that the game needs to attract a large enough player base in order to survive, I don't think dumbing it down is the answer.
Anyway, I think you're suffering from the same symptoms most of us, even I, suffer from: we "grew up" with Vendetta the way it was untill now, and simply can't imagine what "Vendetta the MMORPG" would look like. We're unconsciously clinging to the old Vendetta, but that's gone. The physics engine is tested, now it's time to implement and test the MMORPG elements, and RPG naturally means something a little more complicated than FPS, so why fight it? I assume you played RPGs before, now tell me, what are RPGs all about? They're about a great storyline, a fair share of fighting and questing, and gathering as much equipment as possible and looking for the best combinations. So yeah, more customizability for your ships fits with the "gathering as much equipment as possible and looking for the best combinations" part.
Then again, we can discuss this 'till our feet fall off, I don't think we're really gonna have any impact on the actual gameplay anyway, at least not immediately. I assume the devs already know what they want and are gonna implement it no matter what little ideas we might toss up. The devs already have a clear view of what the final game will look like, and once the basic final game is finished, only then will they start implementing stuff we would like to see which they didn't think of. And that's a good thing: it means they don't get distracted by temporary needs and wants, but have the future of the game in mind when deciding what goes in and what doesn't.
Now, your idea for the repair ship that follows you around... It would be interesting to see how this turns out, how it affects gameplay. I for one don't see that idea working without some major changes to the interface: the repair ship will be the first logical target, and since it's not or only lightly armed it will be a sitting duck. The only way that ship can survive long in battle is if it outmaneuvers and outruns the valk, offers a smaller surface area to shoot at and has enough hull. Plus, if the HUD doesn't get a major revamp it will be pretty useless; a repair ship should have a list of fighters it's assigned to escort in view at all times, with their hull percentages next to it, and needs to be able to cycle through this list rapidly. Kinda what the E key does in Freespace II, for those who played it. Otherwise it's useless; if you have to watch the chat all the time to see if someone is in need of help (provided they got time to tell you in the middle of a fight), then cycle through all targets in the hopes of finding it before you can go administer help, the ship in need is dust already.
But, with the right interface changes and some decent balancing, this could be a great idea nonetheless, and I would consider it a nice and interesting alternative to the whole shields idea. Plus it fits perfectly well with the RPG aspect of the game: you just invented a new "profession": the "repair ship pilot" ;)
Maybe things will remain simple, maybe things will become a bit more complicated. I for one would welcome the little more complicated version, it gives the game so much more depth. You can cater to a broad audience without dumbing it down. And it's natural for an RPG to attract the more intelligent part of the general gaming audience. While I do understand your concern that the game needs to attract a large enough player base in order to survive, I don't think dumbing it down is the answer.
Anyway, I think you're suffering from the same symptoms most of us, even I, suffer from: we "grew up" with Vendetta the way it was untill now, and simply can't imagine what "Vendetta the MMORPG" would look like. We're unconsciously clinging to the old Vendetta, but that's gone. The physics engine is tested, now it's time to implement and test the MMORPG elements, and RPG naturally means something a little more complicated than FPS, so why fight it? I assume you played RPGs before, now tell me, what are RPGs all about? They're about a great storyline, a fair share of fighting and questing, and gathering as much equipment as possible and looking for the best combinations. So yeah, more customizability for your ships fits with the "gathering as much equipment as possible and looking for the best combinations" part.
Then again, we can discuss this 'till our feet fall off, I don't think we're really gonna have any impact on the actual gameplay anyway, at least not immediately. I assume the devs already know what they want and are gonna implement it no matter what little ideas we might toss up. The devs already have a clear view of what the final game will look like, and once the basic final game is finished, only then will they start implementing stuff we would like to see which they didn't think of. And that's a good thing: it means they don't get distracted by temporary needs and wants, but have the future of the game in mind when deciding what goes in and what doesn't.
Now, your idea for the repair ship that follows you around... It would be interesting to see how this turns out, how it affects gameplay. I for one don't see that idea working without some major changes to the interface: the repair ship will be the first logical target, and since it's not or only lightly armed it will be a sitting duck. The only way that ship can survive long in battle is if it outmaneuvers and outruns the valk, offers a smaller surface area to shoot at and has enough hull. Plus, if the HUD doesn't get a major revamp it will be pretty useless; a repair ship should have a list of fighters it's assigned to escort in view at all times, with their hull percentages next to it, and needs to be able to cycle through this list rapidly. Kinda what the E key does in Freespace II, for those who played it. Otherwise it's useless; if you have to watch the chat all the time to see if someone is in need of help (provided they got time to tell you in the middle of a fight), then cycle through all targets in the hopes of finding it before you can go administer help, the ship in need is dust already.
But, with the right interface changes and some decent balancing, this could be a great idea nonetheless, and I would consider it a nice and interesting alternative to the whole shields idea. Plus it fits perfectly well with the RPG aspect of the game: you just invented a new "profession": the "repair ship pilot" ;)