Forums » General
Heat, make tri and quad flare ships over heat, this will disable the launchers for say, 1 second, if this happens too many times the launchers will be ruined and practically welded onto the ship very well. This would require the ship to stay docked for 1 minute, having the weapons removed.
I don't see the valk's problem being its weapons layout. Its speed is what makes it so hard to beat. You get a valk flaming, it runs away. No other ship in the game has this luxury. It takes a team of 5 or 6 just to keep a talented valk jock from docking once you've damaged them. Not only does this inflate the egoes of valk kocks to absurd degrees, it also makes the ship damn near impossible to kill. I want:
a.) A faster fighter with at least 2 S ports or 1 L.
b.) A way to shoot them down while they're running away (un-nerf the rails!)
c.) An agility reduction accompanied by a hull boost.
d.) Give it a pair of really big wings so they'll have to excersize caution while flying to the dock. My vult has to be careful, why shouldn't they?
a.) A faster fighter with at least 2 S ports or 1 L.
b.) A way to shoot them down while they're running away (un-nerf the rails!)
c.) An agility reduction accompanied by a hull boost.
d.) Give it a pair of really big wings so they'll have to excersize caution while flying to the dock. My vult has to be careful, why shouldn't they?
Keep the agility, lower the armor. It's a fighter. The super high agility dictates that there be a corresponding DROP in availible hull armor. You can not have a tank that moves and handles like a Ferrari. Just doesn't happen. You want speed and manuverabilty, you pay for it by loosing armor. Plain and simple.
EDIT: This will also lead us to the conclusion that the armor on the slow, lumbering ships will need to be SUBSTANTIONALLY increased to account for their being so slow and lumbering in the first place. A tank should be able to take a ton of damage before being destroyed. Make the tri-flare valk jocks actually WORK for thier ill-gotten gains.
EDIT: This will also lead us to the conclusion that the armor on the slow, lumbering ships will need to be SUBSTANTIONALLY increased to account for their being so slow and lumbering in the first place. A tank should be able to take a ton of damage before being destroyed. Make the tri-flare valk jocks actually WORK for thier ill-gotten gains.
Lemming, how can the launchers overheat if they're in an absolute zero environment?
Magus, a Valkyrie with tachyons or gravitons is actually pretty easy to destroy because of its big size. Just grab a Warthog, boost up to him, fire your advanced gatling and he's toast. The reason why it's so fast is because it's a special. With the money you pay for a special ship, you damn well better be sure that it's a ship that won't be destroyed easily. It's fast for that reason.
It's my belief that each nation should be given its own "advanced" fighter, bomber, and trading vessel though. They'll each look unique, share the same role, BUT the strengths and weaknesses of each nation will remain as is. In other words although each nation will have its own advanced fighter, the one that's supposed to be war-like will still have the best of three.
The reality of it is is that every sovereign nation needs to have at least a military class and a merchant class to prosper. Otherwise they'd either be taken over by some other nation, or they wouldn't be able to produce enough money to survive. While each nation can sort of lean towards one side or the other, they all essentially need to have these (whether it be weak or strong) in order to be considered a sovereign nation.
Magus, a Valkyrie with tachyons or gravitons is actually pretty easy to destroy because of its big size. Just grab a Warthog, boost up to him, fire your advanced gatling and he's toast. The reason why it's so fast is because it's a special. With the money you pay for a special ship, you damn well better be sure that it's a ship that won't be destroyed easily. It's fast for that reason.
It's my belief that each nation should be given its own "advanced" fighter, bomber, and trading vessel though. They'll each look unique, share the same role, BUT the strengths and weaknesses of each nation will remain as is. In other words although each nation will have its own advanced fighter, the one that's supposed to be war-like will still have the best of three.
The reality of it is is that every sovereign nation needs to have at least a military class and a merchant class to prosper. Otherwise they'd either be taken over by some other nation, or they wouldn't be able to produce enough money to survive. While each nation can sort of lean towards one side or the other, they all essentially need to have these (whether it be weak or strong) in order to be considered a sovereign nation.
Waaaaah i want balance now waaaaaah. Guys your not here to balance. Your here to test. Trying to balance everything out right now is just more work for the devs, many new things will be added in the future that cancel out advantages of otherthings making the game more balanced. You just need to be patient.
P.S. Sir camps i don't call killing me once perfecting anything. I would call that pure dumb luck. And another thing if you're talking about when there were like 8 people on me at once. Thats not perfecting thats quadrupleteaming times 2
P.S. Sir camps i don't call killing me once perfecting anything. I would call that pure dumb luck. And another thing if you're talking about when there were like 8 people on me at once. Thats not perfecting thats quadrupleteaming times 2
Phoenix raises two very good points.
One, that he's an incredibly well-informed authority on the purpose and testing model of Vendetta.
Two, that he's VERY, VERY modest. If you kill him, it simply must be luck, or unfair fighting. Hmm...
For the less-than-deft out there: </sarcasm>
Here's a little lesson about game testing, folks. This isn't coming from an outsider who doesn't know anything about testing and development. I've actually worked on a design team several times. Anyone who says that Vendetta is an engine test is correct. So is anyone who says that Vendetta is a game. What you people don't get is that it's an engine test in the _context_ of a game.
If you don't understand what this means, consider the following. Even if the final product resulting from the Vendetta test is nothing even remotely like what we know as Vendetta today, the fundamental elements designed to be tested in this beta will carry through; this is the purpose of the test. Balance is an element essential to any final game product. Therefore, it is not only prudent but NECESSARY for the developers to attempt to achieve balance in the Vendetta-test so that they can use the feedback and mechanics resulting from that system in their final game.
I don't want to hear any more of this semantic nonsense about this not being a game. It is. The player attraction model assumes that people are going to want to enjoy themselves while they're testing it; otherwise, they simply will not participate. You cannot separate the "test" from the "game." Any individual who says that this is _exclusively_ one or the other is, in fact, flat-out wrong.
As for the issue itself, don't you think that if there are THIS many people talking about the SAME THING, there might just be something wrong with it? I'm beyond poking holes in the Valkyrie. Some idiot jock will just come along and call me a griefer... whatever. I'm here to say this: Developers, there _is_ a problem here. Figure it out and for pity's sake, fix the damned thing. We're tired of this drawing out for so long.
<edit>
Summary of post objectives:
a. Phoenix doesn't know what he's talking about.
b. Vendetta is an engine-test in the context of a game.
c. Therefore, balance is an objective.
d. There is an issue somewhere within this thread. Whatever it is, the developers need to discover it, address it, and fix it. Now. No, really: NOW.
e. I'm back. Deal with it.
</edit>
End of line.
One, that he's an incredibly well-informed authority on the purpose and testing model of Vendetta.
Two, that he's VERY, VERY modest. If you kill him, it simply must be luck, or unfair fighting. Hmm...
For the less-than-deft out there: </sarcasm>
Here's a little lesson about game testing, folks. This isn't coming from an outsider who doesn't know anything about testing and development. I've actually worked on a design team several times. Anyone who says that Vendetta is an engine test is correct. So is anyone who says that Vendetta is a game. What you people don't get is that it's an engine test in the _context_ of a game.
If you don't understand what this means, consider the following. Even if the final product resulting from the Vendetta test is nothing even remotely like what we know as Vendetta today, the fundamental elements designed to be tested in this beta will carry through; this is the purpose of the test. Balance is an element essential to any final game product. Therefore, it is not only prudent but NECESSARY for the developers to attempt to achieve balance in the Vendetta-test so that they can use the feedback and mechanics resulting from that system in their final game.
I don't want to hear any more of this semantic nonsense about this not being a game. It is. The player attraction model assumes that people are going to want to enjoy themselves while they're testing it; otherwise, they simply will not participate. You cannot separate the "test" from the "game." Any individual who says that this is _exclusively_ one or the other is, in fact, flat-out wrong.
As for the issue itself, don't you think that if there are THIS many people talking about the SAME THING, there might just be something wrong with it? I'm beyond poking holes in the Valkyrie. Some idiot jock will just come along and call me a griefer... whatever. I'm here to say this: Developers, there _is_ a problem here. Figure it out and for pity's sake, fix the damned thing. We're tired of this drawing out for so long.
<edit>
Summary of post objectives:
a. Phoenix doesn't know what he's talking about.
b. Vendetta is an engine-test in the context of a game.
c. Therefore, balance is an objective.
d. There is an issue somewhere within this thread. Whatever it is, the developers need to discover it, address it, and fix it. Now. No, really: NOW.
e. I'm back. Deal with it.
</edit>
End of line.
you're = you are; not your
PS: Yes, we ARE here to offer suggestions to make the gameplay more balanced/fun. That's why they offered us a messageboard dedicated to it. But, understandibly, they've given bug squashing a higher priority over balancing the game. However, in the long run it's something that needs to be considered if they want their customers to stay. Cha-ching!
PS: Yes, we ARE here to offer suggestions to make the gameplay more balanced/fun. That's why they offered us a messageboard dedicated to it. But, understandibly, they've given bug squashing a higher priority over balancing the game. However, in the long run it's something that needs to be considered if they want their customers to stay. Cha-ching!
Arolte, as I have said before, there are places for reality, this is not one of them.
Reality is not a prerequisite of balance. Stop associating them.
"The rate of fire was one of the problems, but it wasn't enough to fix it completely."
Agreed.
"The proximity radius is the main issue here. Three sunflares combined in a triangular pattern results in a HUGE proximity radius that's hard to avoid."
I have to disagree with this. I can normally dodge 3 out of 4 triflare volleys completely, and dodge the major portion of the blast 9 times out of 10. There are two secrets to dodging flares: 1) never let a rammer boost at you, when you hear that turbo kick in, fire a stream of tachs or rails or whatever at him so that he has to break off the attack or eat energy. 2) use physics and fly backwards, when you see a rocket coming dodge up, down, left or right and *never* reverse a dodge (going from up to down or left to right).
The sunflares already have a relatively low speed, and their proximity is no greater than any of the other rockets. You don't hear anyone complaining about the prox radius on jackhammers or screamers. Nerfing the prox radius would make them almost impossible to deploy without ramming.
I think the problem lies with the ammunition. Sunflares are an s-port rocket, but a full load of flares will do the same damage as a full load of jackhammers. I think the ammo should be taken down to 12 to start, and if that's still too much take it down to 8. This way if people rely on all flare loadouts they will run out of ammo very quickly. I think it's a little strange right now how you can fit 16 hard hitting rockets into an s-port, and only 12 rockets that do just 500 more damage into an l-port.
Agreed.
"The proximity radius is the main issue here. Three sunflares combined in a triangular pattern results in a HUGE proximity radius that's hard to avoid."
I have to disagree with this. I can normally dodge 3 out of 4 triflare volleys completely, and dodge the major portion of the blast 9 times out of 10. There are two secrets to dodging flares: 1) never let a rammer boost at you, when you hear that turbo kick in, fire a stream of tachs or rails or whatever at him so that he has to break off the attack or eat energy. 2) use physics and fly backwards, when you see a rocket coming dodge up, down, left or right and *never* reverse a dodge (going from up to down or left to right).
The sunflares already have a relatively low speed, and their proximity is no greater than any of the other rockets. You don't hear anyone complaining about the prox radius on jackhammers or screamers. Nerfing the prox radius would make them almost impossible to deploy without ramming.
I think the problem lies with the ammunition. Sunflares are an s-port rocket, but a full load of flares will do the same damage as a full load of jackhammers. I think the ammo should be taken down to 12 to start, and if that's still too much take it down to 8. This way if people rely on all flare loadouts they will run out of ammo very quickly. I think it's a little strange right now how you can fit 16 hard hitting rockets into an s-port, and only 12 rockets that do just 500 more damage into an l-port.
i suspect that screamers and jackhammers would be bitched about if they were used more. you cant mount them on agile ships, and a ship that has trouble maneuvering has trouble ramming.
For once I support arolte :D
every nation gets a special in every class :D, but based on their strengths.
for instance:
Itani:
-special pod
- + 10% speed
- -10 % hull
Serco:
+10% hull
+5 % firepower "every weapon that they mount on it, will do 5% more damage then a standard one"
-10% speed
Neutrals:
+5% speed
+10% more cargo pods "rounded up"
- 5% hull
And please, stop this incessant talk about the valk. It is a good ship for its class. But it is just way to cheap. Just give it an insanely high price. 1 mill for a fully equipped one.
If you loose one, you wont be in one as fast as you were before. This trend is naturally needed to be implemented for all of them.
Considering that a cap only gives you 500k for all the players involved, losing 1 valk will be a substantial loss.
cheers
every nation gets a special in every class :D, but based on their strengths.
for instance:
Itani:
-special pod
- + 10% speed
- -10 % hull
Serco:
+10% hull
+5 % firepower "every weapon that they mount on it, will do 5% more damage then a standard one"
-10% speed
Neutrals:
+5% speed
+10% more cargo pods "rounded up"
- 5% hull
And please, stop this incessant talk about the valk. It is a good ship for its class. But it is just way to cheap. Just give it an insanely high price. 1 mill for a fully equipped one.
If you loose one, you wont be in one as fast as you were before. This trend is naturally needed to be implemented for all of them.
Considering that a cap only gives you 500k for all the players involved, losing 1 valk will be a substantial loss.
cheers
I still say grouped ammo is the best solution... For example, a rocketbus would get 12 shots, while a triflare valk would get 4. They don't pose that much of a threat with only 4 shots...
In my opinon .... they need to pay repairs.
But the costs need to be well calculated. And busses should be excepted. I also support the idea of shared ammo.
But the costs need to be well calculated. And busses should be excepted. I also support the idea of shared ammo.
im thinking since a maud is a trader ship and a centaur has the same cargo, the muad should have 18 or 20 cargo instead
I think the valk is nicely balanced in most ways the only problem I have with it is the fact that everyone has to have that ship. Sometimes when there is a small Itani fleet of 5 people more than likely 4 of them will be fully loaded valks if not all 5. When they die they just go buy a new one. Right now the cost is 30k, which a lot of people have. So I think a price increase to 75k for Itani and 125k for Serco/Neutral then you will have a lot less valk users and a lot less careless users. A small increase in armor to like 12000 would be a nice exchange for the major price raise.
you know very well that people will sill buy it, the damn thing is already a pain in the butt to kill, the hull increase isnt neccesairy, but the price is
"A marauder is not at any lower risk than a wraith. A prom is flying target. They're specials too, so why can't they automatically decide when and where they want to fight? "
-Because the Valk is an advanced *fighter*
The prom is an armored transport, and the maud is an advanced transport. Transports are not war ships, so they shouldn't be given a combat initiative. The prom's specialty is its heavy armor/good firepower, the maud's specialty is its agility. For everyone who complains about the maud's agility being too low: the ability to carry 16 cargo and still be as agile as a hog is pretty special in my opinion.
-Because the Valk is an advanced *fighter*
The prom is an armored transport, and the maud is an advanced transport. Transports are not war ships, so they shouldn't be given a combat initiative. The prom's specialty is its heavy armor/good firepower, the maud's specialty is its agility. For everyone who complains about the maud's agility being too low: the ability to carry 16 cargo and still be as agile as a hog is pretty special in my opinion.
Alright, time for my response:
magus:
"Therefore, a valk pilot is at much lower risk than any other ship."
No, duh? I mean really, it's a special ship, it means it should be at lower risk, or else it wouldn't be special.
Kyphro:
"A. Make them sooo much more expensive, not just like 1mil, but more then that, like 1.2 or something
B. Give the other nations better fighters, this has been disgused
befor, it would make everything alot more fair
C. Get rid of em! That is the most simple way, they are a nuisance!"
A. The difference between a Valk and the next ship is not that great. No one would buy a ship more than 80k unless they had a cool million to burn. Jacking up prices only limits the ship to the few pilots able to afford them (you know who I'm talking about). It would not solve the problem but make it more aggravated.
B. A worthy suggestion. But then, the Valk would still have its advantages. Make no mistake, the Valk would still be the supreme specialty fighter. The Serco one might be an über-Hornet, and the NT one have more carrying capacity than the rest. But before this is done the other ships need to be spread out more in terms of hull and firepower.
C. Bad idea.
magus:
"Which is why we don't want to get rid of the valkyrie. I only want the valk pilots to suffer the same risks as a non-valk. By that I mean make it unable to run away from non-specials. I'll say again, the fastest ship in the game shouldn't be a special. The valk isn't an advanced fighter because it is faster than everything else. It's advanced because it has more speed, armor, and firepower than everything else. Drop its speed, or give other fighters more speed, and it will still trump the other fighters in armor and firepower."
You prove my point. It is special because it is fast. If another ship was fastest, it would be special as well. Drop its speed and you end up with a sub-Hornet fighter.
Again, if everyone uses Vults people would complain about them. Fix the damn weapon slot ammo capacity and everything is good..
Rogue: Yes, I'd be for putting 150 missiles on Rags. They might actually stand a chance of surviving if the missiles were fast enough (about 150% faster than swarms).
magus:
"Therefore, a valk pilot is at much lower risk than any other ship."
No, duh? I mean really, it's a special ship, it means it should be at lower risk, or else it wouldn't be special.
Kyphro:
"A. Make them sooo much more expensive, not just like 1mil, but more then that, like 1.2 or something
B. Give the other nations better fighters, this has been disgused
befor, it would make everything alot more fair
C. Get rid of em! That is the most simple way, they are a nuisance!"
A. The difference between a Valk and the next ship is not that great. No one would buy a ship more than 80k unless they had a cool million to burn. Jacking up prices only limits the ship to the few pilots able to afford them (you know who I'm talking about). It would not solve the problem but make it more aggravated.
B. A worthy suggestion. But then, the Valk would still have its advantages. Make no mistake, the Valk would still be the supreme specialty fighter. The Serco one might be an über-Hornet, and the NT one have more carrying capacity than the rest. But before this is done the other ships need to be spread out more in terms of hull and firepower.
C. Bad idea.
magus:
"Which is why we don't want to get rid of the valkyrie. I only want the valk pilots to suffer the same risks as a non-valk. By that I mean make it unable to run away from non-specials. I'll say again, the fastest ship in the game shouldn't be a special. The valk isn't an advanced fighter because it is faster than everything else. It's advanced because it has more speed, armor, and firepower than everything else. Drop its speed, or give other fighters more speed, and it will still trump the other fighters in armor and firepower."
You prove my point. It is special because it is fast. If another ship was fastest, it would be special as well. Drop its speed and you end up with a sub-Hornet fighter.
Again, if everyone uses Vults people would complain about them. Fix the damn weapon slot ammo capacity and everything is good..
Rogue: Yes, I'd be for putting 150 missiles on Rags. They might actually stand a chance of surviving if the missiles were fast enough (about 150% faster than swarms).
No, it takes one person.