Forums » Suggestions
huh, i was just thinking that sectors needed more objects of interest spread over a larger distance a couple weeks ago, but concers about framerate, and jump-legistics (allong with homework) prevented me from posting a sugestion.
anyway, i like the turbo idea. it would definately help reduce the arbatray feal of turbo physics, and could make high-level combat more interesting.
anyway, i like the turbo idea. it would definately help reduce the arbatray feal of turbo physics, and could make high-level combat more interesting.
Another interesting option is to make the performance depending on the mass of the ship. So a heavy loaded moth will consume more energy then a light or empty moth.
am i the only one that sees this could completely screw up any semblance of balance?
combat is HEAVILY dependent on distance control. the only reason to choose a ship like a corvus vult is for its 75m/s cruise speed, because this allows you to more or less dictate the fight- strafe faster, roll quicker, maintain whatever safety zone you want. the combat ships generally have cruise speeds between 60 and 65, and everything else is 60 and below on the whole. it's going to take a long time to sort it all out, and frankly we dont need it until the stuff to take advantage of it is actually on the horizon instead of just a "well, if we have time besides the other 1230482374 things we plan to add over the next year, we'll do this."
combat is HEAVILY dependent on distance control. the only reason to choose a ship like a corvus vult is for its 75m/s cruise speed, because this allows you to more or less dictate the fight- strafe faster, roll quicker, maintain whatever safety zone you want. the combat ships generally have cruise speeds between 60 and 65, and everything else is 60 and below on the whole. it's going to take a long time to sort it all out, and frankly we dont need it until the stuff to take advantage of it is actually on the horizon instead of just a "well, if we have time besides the other 1230482374 things we plan to add over the next year, we'll do this."
Well, UncleDave, changes they are a'comin'. I realize that combat is heavily dependent on distance control, the thing is, having this kind of turbo/battery interaction will give you MORE control and MORE options, not less.
Right?
Right?
actually no leber it wont.
being able to cruise at 140m/s would make combat significantly less control over distance in combat because closing speeds now have the potential to be much higher.
Dave:
hmmm I was going to make a point about how going at 140m/s would drastically impact the AMOUNT of fire you could put into battle with energy weapons due to the fact that you wouldn't regain any energy, making combat at higher speeds less desireable, but it just occured to me that this change would make backrolling UBER easy, since anyone chasing would be even shorter on energy than they are allready.
Perhaps altering the engines so that forward thrust is defined by this newer system and strafes and dodges are limited as your speed increases over our current 'norms'
if the thrust value in N for strafes was scaled down as forward speed increased it might solve the problem... someone taking full advantage of high forward speed would have almost no dodging ability without changing the facing of the whole ship and applying 'forward' thrust. If nothing else rails would become a great choice against people who flew in that manner.
being able to cruise at 140m/s would make combat significantly less control over distance in combat because closing speeds now have the potential to be much higher.
Dave:
hmmm I was going to make a point about how going at 140m/s would drastically impact the AMOUNT of fire you could put into battle with energy weapons due to the fact that you wouldn't regain any energy, making combat at higher speeds less desireable, but it just occured to me that this change would make backrolling UBER easy, since anyone chasing would be even shorter on energy than they are allready.
Perhaps altering the engines so that forward thrust is defined by this newer system and strafes and dodges are limited as your speed increases over our current 'norms'
if the thrust value in N for strafes was scaled down as forward speed increased it might solve the problem... someone taking full advantage of high forward speed would have almost no dodging ability without changing the facing of the whole ship and applying 'forward' thrust. If nothing else rails would become a great choice against people who flew in that manner.
You have to remember it'll probably be an inverse relationship: The faster you go, the less control you have. Light ships like the Corvus Vulturius will have more control at higher speeds then say a Hornet. Also, turning slows you down in physics mode, why shouldn't remain the same? ie fighting inertia to change velocity.
I'm thinking more maneuverability at medium-range speeds will allow far more options as far as chasing down backrollers. Right now you can either turbo to catch up and risk taking a nice stream of shots in the face, or you can just decide to "not play that" and go fight someone else.
This way you can at least close distance in a controlled fashion while dodging their (slower) shots. Even if you are shorter on energy after chasing, you at least have another tactic.
I think this would make for more controlled shots, a la rail combat almost. Spray 'n pray would become less desirable because of the low speeds you'd need to maintain in order to keep firing.
Acquiring your target with greater maneuvering speed will be of immense benefit. Imagine 2 Cent rev C's going into a merge with a closing speed of 500 m/s, and then being able to control their speed both forwards and backwards at higher velocities before they make their shot. You'll be able to strafe at turbo-style speeds, which will rock.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't we try it with bots first somewhere on the test server? Give furies the capability to do this and see how much more effective (or ineffective) they are? Or would this require sweeping changes to underlying code?
This way you can at least close distance in a controlled fashion while dodging their (slower) shots. Even if you are shorter on energy after chasing, you at least have another tactic.
I think this would make for more controlled shots, a la rail combat almost. Spray 'n pray would become less desirable because of the low speeds you'd need to maintain in order to keep firing.
Acquiring your target with greater maneuvering speed will be of immense benefit. Imagine 2 Cent rev C's going into a merge with a closing speed of 500 m/s, and then being able to control their speed both forwards and backwards at higher velocities before they make their shot. You'll be able to strafe at turbo-style speeds, which will rock.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't we try it with bots first somewhere on the test server? Give furies the capability to do this and see how much more effective (or ineffective) they are? Or would this require sweeping changes to underlying code?
If this involves being able to maneuver at higher speeds, I'm all for it.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11287
Turbo is much too..static at the moment I think...I'll post more thoughts later.
Edit: another thread: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11040
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11287
Turbo is much too..static at the moment I think...I'll post more thoughts later.
Edit: another thread: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11040
I'm not sure I *quite* understand the model you're suggesting, Incarnate, or how it would expedite intra-sector travel...
What implications does this have for sub-turbo maneuvering and energy useage?
It seems to me there was an older thread discussing possible alterations to the thrust/turbo of ships in and out of combat that I thought there were some good points and ideas voiced in...
Had to dig through 20 pages, but here it is:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
What implications does this have for sub-turbo maneuvering and energy useage?
It seems to me there was an older thread discussing possible alterations to the thrust/turbo of ships in and out of combat that I thought there were some good points and ideas voiced in...
Had to dig through 20 pages, but here it is:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
Just a quick comment from a pretty new player:
Could this topic not open a whole can of worms on energy uses and consumption.
I am an old XvsTie player, and in my opinion the power configurations from that game were spot on. With some modifications, VO could move to add both better and more unique configurations for players while maintaining balance.
Basically from what I have seen in this game a new model could be designed something like this.
Battery energy output and battery bank
Power conversion parameters.
To Engine
To Afterburners
To Maneuvering Thrusters
To Guns
So for example, all batteries would get an additional say +20/s output and the above would default to use 5/S. Then, by adding +1-10/S to engine output would increase thrust and top speed by say 2-20%
Afterburners, same change
Maneuvering Thrusters, again a % improvement.
Guns would improve Rate of Fire, Damage, or velocity or all.
It could even be broken down further so that 1/S cost could be applied to only one of the above, (Top speed or thrust), at the players choice.
Also cutting back power consumption, to a minimum of 1 would reduce those parameters by 20% each point to a min of 20% and thus enable ships to focus on what they are good at, as well as see players configure their own Ideal combat mix.
By setting a conversion max by ship type, you would could get even more mileage from these types of settings. (E.G. Agiles Vulture has a max of +20/s to Maneuvering but a +5/s max to Afterburners).
Then allow hotkeys for specific power configurations, and watch just how involved combat can get.
[Edit/Addition]
This could also allow for an additional item to equip, Power converters. Tech 0 20/S Tech 1 25/Sec, etc. Or have it built into the existing batteries.
Could this topic not open a whole can of worms on energy uses and consumption.
I am an old XvsTie player, and in my opinion the power configurations from that game were spot on. With some modifications, VO could move to add both better and more unique configurations for players while maintaining balance.
Basically from what I have seen in this game a new model could be designed something like this.
Battery energy output and battery bank
Power conversion parameters.
To Engine
To Afterburners
To Maneuvering Thrusters
To Guns
So for example, all batteries would get an additional say +20/s output and the above would default to use 5/S. Then, by adding +1-10/S to engine output would increase thrust and top speed by say 2-20%
Afterburners, same change
Maneuvering Thrusters, again a % improvement.
Guns would improve Rate of Fire, Damage, or velocity or all.
It could even be broken down further so that 1/S cost could be applied to only one of the above, (Top speed or thrust), at the players choice.
Also cutting back power consumption, to a minimum of 1 would reduce those parameters by 20% each point to a min of 20% and thus enable ships to focus on what they are good at, as well as see players configure their own Ideal combat mix.
By setting a conversion max by ship type, you would could get even more mileage from these types of settings. (E.G. Agiles Vulture has a max of +20/s to Maneuvering but a +5/s max to Afterburners).
Then allow hotkeys for specific power configurations, and watch just how involved combat can get.
[Edit/Addition]
This could also allow for an additional item to equip, Power converters. Tech 0 20/S Tech 1 25/Sec, etc. Or have it built into the existing batteries.
If we're to change turbo stuff, i'd make one important change to remove that swimming-through-a-pea-soup feeling turbo currently has.
If Flight Assist is turned on, the current turbo thing kinda makes sense.
If FA is turned OFF, then releasing turbo at 140m/s should let you COAST at that speed.
If Flight Assist is turned on, the current turbo thing kinda makes sense.
If FA is turned OFF, then releasing turbo at 140m/s should let you COAST at that speed.
mgl_mouser, that would violate Newtonus Ba-Slick's 3rd Law of Inertia.
It would also make traders even harder to catch. You could coast your behemoth right by a pirate and be gone before they got up to speed, and coast right to a wormhole at that speed.
PsyRa:
I think what you mentioned about power configuration and interfacing would be an on-the-fly necessity for capitol-class ships (they would need to manage their energy very carefully in combat, supplying thrusters, shields, weapons batteries, etc..) but that for general small ships and fighters, any more energy micromanagement would be a bad thing, taking away from the simplicity of the gameplay and the learning curve, which is currently very good. Tune-ups and modifications would be helpful for ships (i.e., allowing a player to pay to at station, alter the thrust/speed ratio of their ships, take off armor to lose weight and other things like that, and also to modify weapon stats in a similar fasion, etc..) - this would add more variation to the universe, but in small ships, nothing should be adjusted on the fly (except perhaps for weapon harmonization/grouping)
I think what you mentioned about power configuration and interfacing would be an on-the-fly necessity for capitol-class ships (they would need to manage their energy very carefully in combat, supplying thrusters, shields, weapons batteries, etc..) but that for general small ships and fighters, any more energy micromanagement would be a bad thing, taking away from the simplicity of the gameplay and the learning curve, which is currently very good. Tune-ups and modifications would be helpful for ships (i.e., allowing a player to pay to at station, alter the thrust/speed ratio of their ships, take off armor to lose weight and other things like that, and also to modify weapon stats in a similar fasion, etc..) - this would add more variation to the universe, but in small ships, nothing should be adjusted on the fly (except perhaps for weapon harmonization/grouping)
Cunjo:
"but that for general small ships and fighters, any more energy micromanagement would be a bad thing, taking away from the simplicity of the game play and the learning curve"
I understand what you are saying about the simplicity being a strong playability feature, especially during the early levels.
That said, when flying, I do feel a lack of customization for dealing with higher end bots, as well as pvp. Perhaps is was all the time I spent playing XvsTie that kind of spoilt me. I really think anyone watching this thread to should play it a bit to understand what I am basing my model on.
All that said, I don't see how adding more possibilities for combat would take away anything from the existing model. Just make sure that current settings are the default, and configure away from that point on.
Make sure to keep the early bots the same, and new players wouldn't even need to know about it till they got above the power converter level 0.
I would think that any long term player would love to have the ability to "tweak" their ship, to just the fighting style they like.
<Off topic>
In order to just learn how to fight, it would be nice to have a test flight/combat "simulator" on each station, so that trying out all the new toys didn't have to come with such a high tuition or time suck. Just a quick "test ship against bots" button.
</Off topic>
"but that for general small ships and fighters, any more energy micromanagement would be a bad thing, taking away from the simplicity of the game play and the learning curve"
I understand what you are saying about the simplicity being a strong playability feature, especially during the early levels.
That said, when flying, I do feel a lack of customization for dealing with higher end bots, as well as pvp. Perhaps is was all the time I spent playing XvsTie that kind of spoilt me. I really think anyone watching this thread to should play it a bit to understand what I am basing my model on.
All that said, I don't see how adding more possibilities for combat would take away anything from the existing model. Just make sure that current settings are the default, and configure away from that point on.
Make sure to keep the early bots the same, and new players wouldn't even need to know about it till they got above the power converter level 0.
I would think that any long term player would love to have the ability to "tweak" their ship, to just the fighting style they like.
<Off topic>
In order to just learn how to fight, it would be nice to have a test flight/combat "simulator" on each station, so that trying out all the new toys didn't have to come with such a high tuition or time suck. Just a quick "test ship against bots" button.
</Off topic>
I agree with the turbo changes Incarnate presented, however, I also think that, as has been said previously, the inertia having to be fought should be proportional to the increase in speed. Ability to strafe, rise/drop (up/down), yaw and pitch shouldn't just be cut off at the 1:1 marker, and they shouldn't stay the same as before that point. Instead, the ship should become less responsive at higher speeds, like moldyman (and many others) said.
As for what UncleDave said:
I guess it would have to be tested out whether the location of that 1:1 point could replace the current advantage a 75 m/s cruise speed ship like the Corvus Vulturius has over 65 m/s cruise ships. That means that a CV would have the critical point at 80 m/s, while the rag has it at 45. Those numbers are purely fictional, please don't read too much into them.
Also worth looking at would be the absolute top speed, and which ships should be able to reach it (like the old TD hog), which means you would have to do some 'loop shaping', to abuse a term from control systems theory. Basically, change the curve so that some ships reach higher speeds faster than others (I lack the correct words for that in english, please indulge my ignorance).
As for coasting at high speeds:
If I'm reading this right, both coasting and 'drag' have insufficient scientific explanations (the trajectory of coasting objects should be affected by other objects such as moons, planets, suns, and very large asteroids), and 'drag' has very high gameplay value, so it should not be dicarded lightly.
As for what UncleDave said:
I guess it would have to be tested out whether the location of that 1:1 point could replace the current advantage a 75 m/s cruise speed ship like the Corvus Vulturius has over 65 m/s cruise ships. That means that a CV would have the critical point at 80 m/s, while the rag has it at 45. Those numbers are purely fictional, please don't read too much into them.
Also worth looking at would be the absolute top speed, and which ships should be able to reach it (like the old TD hog), which means you would have to do some 'loop shaping', to abuse a term from control systems theory. Basically, change the curve so that some ships reach higher speeds faster than others (I lack the correct words for that in english, please indulge my ignorance).
As for coasting at high speeds:
If I'm reading this right, both coasting and 'drag' have insufficient scientific explanations (the trajectory of coasting objects should be affected by other objects such as moons, planets, suns, and very large asteroids), and 'drag' has very high gameplay value, so it should not be dicarded lightly.
PsyRa:
I agree completely, only I think that for smaller ships, customization should be hard-set when you leave the station with it (no adjusting it once in flight) That way you still have the per-scenario customization you want, yet without the micromanagement.
I agree completely, only I think that for smaller ships, customization should be hard-set when you leave the station with it (no adjusting it once in flight) That way you still have the per-scenario customization you want, yet without the micromanagement.
I love the idea :)
Zooming past pirates who can't even scratch your ship :)
Zooming past pirates who can't even scratch your ship :)
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
sorry, seemed like nobody was reading my post or checking that thread...
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
sorry, seemed like nobody was reading my post or checking that thread...
PsyRa & Cunjo: It has been ages since I played X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter but I am still familiar with the power management system you're referring to. I am intrigued by your comment on implementing a similar power management system here in VO.
For those who are not familiar with the system the set-up goes like this: There were 2 or three categories depending on the ship you were flying. The lightest and fastest ships, the TIE Fighter & Interceptor, had engine and laser power consumption. The heavier ships, the X-Wing, the TIE Advance, the Y-Wing, and the lightly shielded A-Wing, had engine, laser and shield power consumption. Though there might have been two ships with 4 categories, that is beside the point. The recharge rate or strength of a given category increases or decreases with its power allotment. Power to the engines means more potential speed. However, more speed also means less maneuverability, in fact the game recommends flying at 2/3 of the ship’s top speed for the best balance between speed and maneuverability. It should be noted that power could be only allotted in set intervals for each category and there was no “turbo” in X-Wing vs. TIE. There was also a minimum power allotment for each system that, should power be decreased below that minimum, would result in system deterioration and, ultimately, failure. The power available for each ship was finite and would not allow the maximization of all systems at once.
The point being, this system was very effective and extremely easy to adjust on the fly in close combat. (I had the categories mapped to my joystick hat toggle.) Lasers could be given more power for a momentary burst of fire or engines could get a quick bump for a fast move. Power configuration could be adjusted in an instant to prepare for a new foe. Using a per-scenario situation means that jumping into b-8 expecting to fight a Rev C and finding a prom instead leaves you at a potentially deadly disadvantage. One could contend that it is the player’s choice to configure his or her ship a given way and that the disadvantage is the pilot’s error. Such logic is accurate, but consider its gameplay implications. Without nuanced, on the fly power distribution control, true ship personalization is unlikely due to the nature of the unknown VO universe. Consider the Rev C, the vult, and the valk, they are fast, light, and deadly, and nearly everyone flies it. Why? Because it is the best solution in combat, from light fighters to proms, the Rev C can handle them all. Sure, a Reg or a centaur can be handy every now and then. But they have (intentional) weaknesses. And while those few pilots who handle an out of the norm ship very well, the rest of the world takes the best overall solution. The result and relevance? It is a matter of time before people figure out what the best preset power configurations are. Pretty soon people will trend towards the best over all solution with only a handful of pilots really tweaking their settings. When this occurs we are effectively back to where we began, a universe with a near uniform load out. A change, yielding little actual change.
For those who are not familiar with the system the set-up goes like this: There were 2 or three categories depending on the ship you were flying. The lightest and fastest ships, the TIE Fighter & Interceptor, had engine and laser power consumption. The heavier ships, the X-Wing, the TIE Advance, the Y-Wing, and the lightly shielded A-Wing, had engine, laser and shield power consumption. Though there might have been two ships with 4 categories, that is beside the point. The recharge rate or strength of a given category increases or decreases with its power allotment. Power to the engines means more potential speed. However, more speed also means less maneuverability, in fact the game recommends flying at 2/3 of the ship’s top speed for the best balance between speed and maneuverability. It should be noted that power could be only allotted in set intervals for each category and there was no “turbo” in X-Wing vs. TIE. There was also a minimum power allotment for each system that, should power be decreased below that minimum, would result in system deterioration and, ultimately, failure. The power available for each ship was finite and would not allow the maximization of all systems at once.
The point being, this system was very effective and extremely easy to adjust on the fly in close combat. (I had the categories mapped to my joystick hat toggle.) Lasers could be given more power for a momentary burst of fire or engines could get a quick bump for a fast move. Power configuration could be adjusted in an instant to prepare for a new foe. Using a per-scenario situation means that jumping into b-8 expecting to fight a Rev C and finding a prom instead leaves you at a potentially deadly disadvantage. One could contend that it is the player’s choice to configure his or her ship a given way and that the disadvantage is the pilot’s error. Such logic is accurate, but consider its gameplay implications. Without nuanced, on the fly power distribution control, true ship personalization is unlikely due to the nature of the unknown VO universe. Consider the Rev C, the vult, and the valk, they are fast, light, and deadly, and nearly everyone flies it. Why? Because it is the best solution in combat, from light fighters to proms, the Rev C can handle them all. Sure, a Reg or a centaur can be handy every now and then. But they have (intentional) weaknesses. And while those few pilots who handle an out of the norm ship very well, the rest of the world takes the best overall solution. The result and relevance? It is a matter of time before people figure out what the best preset power configurations are. Pretty soon people will trend towards the best over all solution with only a handful of pilots really tweaking their settings. When this occurs we are effectively back to where we began, a universe with a near uniform load out. A change, yielding little actual change.