Forums » Suggestions
Alloh, we've already established that the damage indicator is horribly inaccurate.
@Phaserlight
I am not getting percentages confused with absolute values and I don't know why you would say that. Also, you seem to be getting to my point in your second paragraph, but by the second sentence you seem to lose it.
My understanding of the OP suggestion is that he is proposing we reduce the overall thrust of the ship on a ratio of 1:0.25% Damage taken:Thrust reduction.
That means in plain english that for every 1% of damage, we reduce the thrust 0.25%.
This means that the higher your armour is, the less the thrust will be reduced when you take damage in absolute terms. In the case of the skyprom where it has both high armour and high thrust values, the effect will be minimal when you compare it to another ship taking the same amount of damage in absolute terms.
It is absolutely relevant to the OP's suggestion, because the model is too simplistic and contrary to the OP, it will be a nightmare to tweak for balance.
You cannot achieve balance in Vendetta by applying this kind of damage model with a blanket percentage over all ships. It will exacerbate the inequalities that already exist in the ships and it boggles my mind how you can't all see that.
You would have to come up with individual values for each ship, and if you do that you might as well create individual rules for every ship anyway. Strip away that and you're back to 'implement performance degradation for damaged ships'. But he didn't just suggest that, he suggested/asked the question as to whether this kind of percentage model would be easier to implement and tweak for balance, and I answered a resounding hell to the no.
Yes, Whistler, it would be nice to have some sort of damage reduction model, I agree entirely, perhaps like this? http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/26915
But this is definitely not it.
I am not getting percentages confused with absolute values and I don't know why you would say that. Also, you seem to be getting to my point in your second paragraph, but by the second sentence you seem to lose it.
My understanding of the OP suggestion is that he is proposing we reduce the overall thrust of the ship on a ratio of 1:0.25% Damage taken:Thrust reduction.
That means in plain english that for every 1% of damage, we reduce the thrust 0.25%.
This means that the higher your armour is, the less the thrust will be reduced when you take damage in absolute terms. In the case of the skyprom where it has both high armour and high thrust values, the effect will be minimal when you compare it to another ship taking the same amount of damage in absolute terms.
It is absolutely relevant to the OP's suggestion, because the model is too simplistic and contrary to the OP, it will be a nightmare to tweak for balance.
You cannot achieve balance in Vendetta by applying this kind of damage model with a blanket percentage over all ships. It will exacerbate the inequalities that already exist in the ships and it boggles my mind how you can't all see that.
You would have to come up with individual values for each ship, and if you do that you might as well create individual rules for every ship anyway. Strip away that and you're back to 'implement performance degradation for damaged ships'. But he didn't just suggest that, he suggested/asked the question as to whether this kind of percentage model would be easier to implement and tweak for balance, and I answered a resounding hell to the no.
Yes, Whistler, it would be nice to have some sort of damage reduction model, I agree entirely, perhaps like this? http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/26915
But this is definitely not it.
I'm not understanding why there is so much heat over this. The OP said the stats were a starting point. I don't think we need to argue over the proposed stats and throw the whole idea out because of them. We should be discussing new ones.
You initiate the non constructive bantering by mocking TRS's use of the (admittedly pretentious and namby-pamby) Queen's English, and then go on to complain when he responds in kind? Are you sure you didn't get the definitions of "moderator" and "instigator" confused? Because you can't be both. They're kind of mutually exclusive roles. (And yes, I know that sucks. Been there, done that.)
As for the discussion between TRS and Phaserlight, let me see if I can clarify. I'm sure TRS realizes Phaserlight's point that armored ships already take relatively less damage from the same weapons. So I believe his point is not that the OP would suddenly result in that, but rather that the OP would multiply it. Where previously an equal exchange of shots would leave the vulture relatively more damaged than the prom, with the OP it would also leave the vulture with less performance on top of that.
However, this is not why I do not support the OP, because I don't think the imbalance itself would be that big of a deal. IMO, TRS is overreacting in that regard. Though its effect on the valk could be nasty, most other armored ships are clumsy enough that the OP might actually make them slightly more balanced (e.g. hornet, rag). Proms, for example, are easy to beat. You just hang back and shoot them with distance energy weapons like AAPs. Since Proms typically use crappy close-range spray-and-pray weapons, and mid-range flares, and are less maneuverable and have bigger profiles, the light ship in the distance has the advantage. It can dodge everything the prom throws out and slowly wear it down. But those are boring tactics. And that leads to why I oppose the OP.
I believe that the OP would result in people being even more standoffish in their fights than they already are. I prefer fights that are up close and intense, as those are more fun than fights where one or both parties are hanging way back because they're afraid of taking damage. We have enough losers like that already. The OP would only make things worse.
So, -1.
As for the discussion between TRS and Phaserlight, let me see if I can clarify. I'm sure TRS realizes Phaserlight's point that armored ships already take relatively less damage from the same weapons. So I believe his point is not that the OP would suddenly result in that, but rather that the OP would multiply it. Where previously an equal exchange of shots would leave the vulture relatively more damaged than the prom, with the OP it would also leave the vulture with less performance on top of that.
However, this is not why I do not support the OP, because I don't think the imbalance itself would be that big of a deal. IMO, TRS is overreacting in that regard. Though its effect on the valk could be nasty, most other armored ships are clumsy enough that the OP might actually make them slightly more balanced (e.g. hornet, rag). Proms, for example, are easy to beat. You just hang back and shoot them with distance energy weapons like AAPs. Since Proms typically use crappy close-range spray-and-pray weapons, and mid-range flares, and are less maneuverable and have bigger profiles, the light ship in the distance has the advantage. It can dodge everything the prom throws out and slowly wear it down. But those are boring tactics. And that leads to why I oppose the OP.
I believe that the OP would result in people being even more standoffish in their fights than they already are. I prefer fights that are up close and intense, as those are more fun than fights where one or both parties are hanging way back because they're afraid of taking damage. We have enough losers like that already. The OP would only make things worse.
So, -1.
Thanks. I inherited a small collection of English children's books from the early 1900's when I was young. I read them like crazy all summer, but it created havoc for me later on in school because my written work was peppered not just with English variant spellings, but obsolete ones at that. I hadn't considered that my comment about the "u"'s would be seen as mocking. I do apologize for that.
"I hadn't considered that my comment about the "u"'s would be seen as mocking."
Clearly you are a product/victim of the American educational system... I hopes this isn't considered mocking.
Clearly you are a product/victim of the American educational system... I hopes this isn't considered mocking.
I like this idea.
Maybe you could make it so certain stats get damaged when you hit the ship in certain places? For example, hitting the engines would decrease the speed?
Maybe you could make it so certain stats get damaged when you hit the ship in certain places? For example, hitting the engines would decrease the speed?
The fact that it would, per shot, hurt a valk more than a prom is part of the appeal. As it stands now, the valk is OP largely because of its ability to hit and run with impunity, regardless of whether it's at 100% or 0.01% hull.
Perhaps a better approach would be one where the fraction involved differs by type of performance harmed. E.g., thrust, which is used for dodging, would only suffer a 1/6% reduction per 1% of damage; speed, which is used for backing and closing distance, would suffer a 1/5% reduction; turbo thrust, which can be used for rapid distance changes but is primarially used for running, would suffer a 1/4% reduction per 1% damage inflicted; turbo speed, used exclusively for running away, would suffer a 1/2% reduction per 1% of damage inflicted.
Perhaps a better approach would be one where the fraction involved differs by type of performance harmed. E.g., thrust, which is used for dodging, would only suffer a 1/6% reduction per 1% of damage; speed, which is used for backing and closing distance, would suffer a 1/5% reduction; turbo thrust, which can be used for rapid distance changes but is primarially used for running, would suffer a 1/4% reduction per 1% damage inflicted; turbo speed, used exclusively for running away, would suffer a 1/2% reduction per 1% of damage inflicted.
The fact that it would, per shot, hurt a valk more than a prom is part of the appeal. As it stands now, the valk is OP largely because of its ability to hit and run with impunity, regardless of whether it's at 100% or 0.01% hull.
While I agree that valks are far more role-imbalanced than any other ship in the game, nerfing them against the Prometheus is way too harsh on every other ship in the game. They're already absurdly above every other ship there is and it's terrible for role diversity.
Anyway, tweaking the values makes it more sensical, but I don't see a reason why you wouldn't have different values for each different ship, and then going that far, you want directional damage to play a role in it as well. It's a pretty serious and radical change to the VO combat system which would be a good thing, but I'd be super curious to see how incarnate would implement one. I have a feeling it would be quite different from this.
While I agree that valks are far more role-imbalanced than any other ship in the game, nerfing them against the Prometheus is way too harsh on every other ship in the game. They're already absurdly above every other ship there is and it's terrible for role diversity.
Anyway, tweaking the values makes it more sensical, but I don't see a reason why you wouldn't have different values for each different ship, and then going that far, you want directional damage to play a role in it as well. It's a pretty serious and radical change to the VO combat system which would be a good thing, but I'd be super curious to see how incarnate would implement one. I have a feeling it would be quite different from this.