Forums » Suggestions
Proximity Chaff Dispenser
One again we approach the idea of defensive weaponry in Vendetta. This time, however, I believe I have stumbled upon an idea that could work within the current structure of the game, and be balanced, and also add new strategies and fun to the game. I propose a small port wepon that dispenses a "proximity chaff" cloud of about 30m in radius. This cloud would have the following properties...
1. Inertia. The cloud would move at the same speed, and in the same direction, as the ship that launched it. This means, a ship willing to give up manuverablilty would be able to stay in the cloud until it dissipates.
2. External proximity detonation. Any proximity weapon approaching the cloud would react to the cloud boundary as it would react to any other ship, and detonate. Therefore, Rockets would detonate 30m from the cloud, Geminii would detonate 10m from the cloud, etc.
3. Internal Proximity deactvation. Any proximity weapon launched while INSIDE the cloud would be scrambled, and fail to function as a proximity weapon. Alternately, they could regain proximity funtions after leaving the cloud, though this leads to greater possibilities for abuse.
4. Duration. The cloud would persist for a certain duaration, and would then dissipate. I would suggest a duration of at least 1 minute. Dissipation could be all at once, or it could be reflected by the gradual shrinking of the clouds effective radius.
5. Ammunition. The weapon should have a limited ammunition supply. The longer the duration is made, the less the ammunition supply should be...
The effects of a weapon of this nature would be many. Any ship carying the weapon would have its own offensive ability reduced by the loss of a weapon port. Such ships would be nearly invulnerable to attacks by proximity weapons, but due to the need to keep to a straight course, they would be much more vulnerable to energy weapons. Ships would also be unable to launch their own proximity weapons effectively from within the cloud. A weapon of this nature would make a very effective mine sweeper. Proximity mines would be destroyed, Lighning mines would either target the cloud edge, or fail to function while inside the cloud (designers' choice) A ship so equipped could drift towards a flag with no fear of mines, but would be hard pressed to avoid defensive turrets. A weapon of this type would also provide no protection against Avalon torpedoes. Indeed, a ship employing a Proximity cloud would be MORE vunerable to them, as they would still be well inside the blast radius when the cloud triggered the warhead.
If you let your imagination run a little you can see that this weapon has many strengths, but also many weaknesses. What it primarily does is to prevent people from relying to heavily on any one type of tactic. This I think is a very good thing for the Game....
Thanks for listening.... (Saemus)
1. Inertia. The cloud would move at the same speed, and in the same direction, as the ship that launched it. This means, a ship willing to give up manuverablilty would be able to stay in the cloud until it dissipates.
2. External proximity detonation. Any proximity weapon approaching the cloud would react to the cloud boundary as it would react to any other ship, and detonate. Therefore, Rockets would detonate 30m from the cloud, Geminii would detonate 10m from the cloud, etc.
3. Internal Proximity deactvation. Any proximity weapon launched while INSIDE the cloud would be scrambled, and fail to function as a proximity weapon. Alternately, they could regain proximity funtions after leaving the cloud, though this leads to greater possibilities for abuse.
4. Duration. The cloud would persist for a certain duaration, and would then dissipate. I would suggest a duration of at least 1 minute. Dissipation could be all at once, or it could be reflected by the gradual shrinking of the clouds effective radius.
5. Ammunition. The weapon should have a limited ammunition supply. The longer the duration is made, the less the ammunition supply should be...
The effects of a weapon of this nature would be many. Any ship carying the weapon would have its own offensive ability reduced by the loss of a weapon port. Such ships would be nearly invulnerable to attacks by proximity weapons, but due to the need to keep to a straight course, they would be much more vulnerable to energy weapons. Ships would also be unable to launch their own proximity weapons effectively from within the cloud. A weapon of this nature would make a very effective mine sweeper. Proximity mines would be destroyed, Lighning mines would either target the cloud edge, or fail to function while inside the cloud (designers' choice) A ship so equipped could drift towards a flag with no fear of mines, but would be hard pressed to avoid defensive turrets. A weapon of this type would also provide no protection against Avalon torpedoes. Indeed, a ship employing a Proximity cloud would be MORE vunerable to them, as they would still be well inside the blast radius when the cloud triggered the warhead.
If you let your imagination run a little you can see that this weapon has many strengths, but also many weaknesses. What it primarily does is to prevent people from relying to heavily on any one type of tactic. This I think is a very good thing for the Game....
Thanks for listening.... (Saemus)
Hmmm.... very interesting idea. My first reaction is that this sounds like a bit of an uber-shield that I could activate anytime I was in trouble. It is a very unique idea though. May I offer a few suggestions?
"3. Internal Proximity deactvation. Any proximity weapon launched while INSIDE the cloud would be scrambled, and fail to function as a proximity weapon. Alternately, they could regain proximity funtions after leaving the cloud, though this leads to greater possibilities for abuse. "
And how! So basically when I am inside this cloud, I'm invulnerable to enemy rockets, but I can still fire my own rockets and they won't hurt me until they leave the cloud. I think this is really a step in the wrong direction. How about either saying you can't fire prox weapons while inside the cloud, or your own weapons react with the cloud just like an enemy's weapon, i.e. they would blow up in your face.
Regarding point 1: What if you toned down the radius a little (say, 10-15m) and instead of having the chaff travel right on top of your ship, give it a backwards momentum of 10-20 m/s relative to your ship. This way the chaff would be less of a super-shield and would actually be a little more effective if someone was on your tail firing rockets.
Regarding point 4: 1 minute seems a bit long. How about 10-15 seconds?
Also, perhaps you could say that once the chaff triggers a prox explosion, it gets destroyed by the splash. In other words, one chaff per missile/rocket volley/mine. That way I wouldn't be able to just plow through a whole minefield and steal a nation's flag, or create an indestructable shield around me for a short duration.
Otherwise this seems like a very cool idea, and I think it would give energy weapons a bit more of an edge over rockets.
"3. Internal Proximity deactvation. Any proximity weapon launched while INSIDE the cloud would be scrambled, and fail to function as a proximity weapon. Alternately, they could regain proximity funtions after leaving the cloud, though this leads to greater possibilities for abuse. "
And how! So basically when I am inside this cloud, I'm invulnerable to enemy rockets, but I can still fire my own rockets and they won't hurt me until they leave the cloud. I think this is really a step in the wrong direction. How about either saying you can't fire prox weapons while inside the cloud, or your own weapons react with the cloud just like an enemy's weapon, i.e. they would blow up in your face.
Regarding point 1: What if you toned down the radius a little (say, 10-15m) and instead of having the chaff travel right on top of your ship, give it a backwards momentum of 10-20 m/s relative to your ship. This way the chaff would be less of a super-shield and would actually be a little more effective if someone was on your tail firing rockets.
Regarding point 4: 1 minute seems a bit long. How about 10-15 seconds?
Also, perhaps you could say that once the chaff triggers a prox explosion, it gets destroyed by the splash. In other words, one chaff per missile/rocket volley/mine. That way I wouldn't be able to just plow through a whole minefield and steal a nation's flag, or create an indestructable shield around me for a short duration.
Otherwise this seems like a very cool idea, and I think it would give energy weapons a bit more of an edge over rockets.
It has elements of the ECM field and the smoke mine from the toys thread, but the rules are a little bit klunky for my tastes. Anything with that many properties requiring that much explanation is just too complex as a weapon and tends to feel like something better found in Mario World to me.
well, to answer your questions... It IS a bit of an uber shield when it comes to people who only use rockets and other proxy weapons... thats the point. However I think the downsides would more than balance this out.. Things to remember... as for the internal Proximity deactivation, Weapons regaining their proxy after leaving the field was the 2nd option. Yes, this does allow you to shoot your rockets/missles out of the field but using a ramming or boost launching technique wold be just about impossible. As I said in my original post I would prefer that weapons originating within the field loose their proxy ability altogether. I simply proposed the other way as an alternative.
Also, I think you are underestimating the difficulty of staying within the cloud. The cloud does not "follow" the ship that created it, so any boosting or variation in speed or direction from dodging will quickly pull you out of the protective cloud.
As for the i minute duration being a bit long, that really depends on the number of shots you have. I personally would prefer only 3 or f long duration shots, rather than many short duration shots. This makes the clever use of the system more important....
Also, ships with this weapon would be by no means immune to rockets. Remember, you first have to be aware of an attack to defend against it. Launching the weapon when rockets are already closing in would do little to save your skin. IF you are quick, it might save your life, but you are likely to still take some damage.
Remember also that while is does provide very good protection agaist rockets it leaves a person mess able to strike back, and more vulnerable to energy weapons and Avalon torpedoes. It is a tradeoff that some people will be willing to make, and some won't . THAT is what makes it an attractive system to me :) Weapons that are popular with everybody are usually the broken ones...
Also, I think you are underestimating the difficulty of staying within the cloud. The cloud does not "follow" the ship that created it, so any boosting or variation in speed or direction from dodging will quickly pull you out of the protective cloud.
As for the i minute duration being a bit long, that really depends on the number of shots you have. I personally would prefer only 3 or f long duration shots, rather than many short duration shots. This makes the clever use of the system more important....
Also, ships with this weapon would be by no means immune to rockets. Remember, you first have to be aware of an attack to defend against it. Launching the weapon when rockets are already closing in would do little to save your skin. IF you are quick, it might save your life, but you are likely to still take some damage.
Remember also that while is does provide very good protection agaist rockets it leaves a person mess able to strike back, and more vulnerable to energy weapons and Avalon torpedoes. It is a tradeoff that some people will be willing to make, and some won't . THAT is what makes it an attractive system to me :) Weapons that are popular with everybody are usually the broken ones...
So, is it Celebrim's job to shoot down all ideas? I have never seen a bigger naysayer in my life. He must be the one who tries to keep the progrqammers from getting bogged down... Anyway, it is not complicated at all, I simply was verbose in MY expination so that the DEVELOPERS would have a clear picture ow what I was thinking about.
In the game world, the device itself would be a simple cloud of metallic / magnetic particles. This would serve to fool any proximity sensor into thinking that it was close to a valid target... Proxy weapons that are launched from ships MUST have some form of safety to keep them from detonating as soon as they are launched. Launchin a weapon while inside the cloud would give the weapons safety system the mistaken impression that it had never moved away from the firing ship... Now if the rockets in vendetta had a timed arming system (like they should have) then you could simply have the weappons detonate as soon as they arm if still inside the clouds influence... Since this logical feature is lacking, I had to come up with another plausible behavior from weapons originating inside the cloud of paritcles..
This is not an outrageous idea It is a simple, direct solution that any pilot w/ a paper shredder and a bunch of tinfoil should be able to produce for himself. We are not talking high tech here.
In the game world, the device itself would be a simple cloud of metallic / magnetic particles. This would serve to fool any proximity sensor into thinking that it was close to a valid target... Proxy weapons that are launched from ships MUST have some form of safety to keep them from detonating as soon as they are launched. Launchin a weapon while inside the cloud would give the weapons safety system the mistaken impression that it had never moved away from the firing ship... Now if the rockets in vendetta had a timed arming system (like they should have) then you could simply have the weappons detonate as soon as they arm if still inside the clouds influence... Since this logical feature is lacking, I had to come up with another plausible behavior from weapons originating inside the cloud of paritcles..
This is not an outrageous idea It is a simple, direct solution that any pilot w/ a paper shredder and a bunch of tinfoil should be able to produce for himself. We are not talking high tech here.
Hey, I have once in a while liked an idea. Admittedly, not often, but occassionally.
But I am a cynic, and a skeptic, and arrogant enough to believe that I have a reasonable idea of what makes for a good game so yes I am a naysayer. It's not my job - more of a hobby.
If the only thing I accomplish is keeping the programmers from getting bogged down, then I will feel like I accomplished more than I would have believed that I could .
I'm likely to complain about alot of things, but being verbose is not one of them. By all means, be technical and detailed.
But there is a difference between being technical and detailed in your description, and taking a concept that is inherently unbalanced, hanging a number of restrictions on it to make it balanced, looking at that and realizing that its exploitable, so putting a few other restrictions on it, then looking at it again and realizing that its too weak so adding a few additional advantages to it and so forth, and then realizing that you have to create a bunch of special cases because you originally made some assumptions that aren't universally true. That isn't being detailed. That is being inelegant, and your idea while not as extreme as my example, strikes me nonetheless as being inelegant.
I would proceed as follows:
1) What am I really trying to accomplish with my idea?
2) Is there a simplier way to accomplish my goals?
3) Repeat #2 until you can't think of one.
4) Is my idea predicated to a certain extent on the devs changing the game to suit my tastes? If so, return to #2.
I didn't say the idea was outrageous or even (necessarily) bad. I said I thought it was kludgy, rules heavy, and inelegant.
For that matter it isn't even detailed.
Answer the following questions:
1) What happens if the cloud intersects a solid object?
2) What if the solid object is smaller than the cloud?
3) What if the solid object is _much_ smaller than the cloud? Should physics take a back seat to versimilitude given the behavior intuitively expected by the average observer?
4) At what percentage of the clouds radiuses does the behavior change, if at all?
5) Is the cloud opaque? Semi-opaque? Translucent (and therefore not seen until its effects are observed)?
"Any proximity weapon launched while INSIDE the cloud would be scrambled, and fail to function as a proximity weapon. Alternately, they could regain proximity funtions after leaving the cloud, though this leads to greater possibilities for abuse."
6) What does 'fails to function' mean? Does it not have a proximity radius, but does detonate on impact? Does it not detonate at all?
7) Please more fully detail how you plan on dealing with the 'greater possibilities for abuse'.
"Such ships would be nearly invulnerable to attacks by proximity weapons"
8) Please explain this statement in the light of the fact that most proximity weapons have a much greater than 30m blast radius - rockets for instance have a blast radius of ~60m. Aren't you just making yourself a bigger target?
9) Explain how you will deal with people 'cloud ramming' enemy ships. That is to say, firing off one of these into the face of an enemy ship in order to negate the enemies rockets (and indeed to blow them up in thier face), and then firing thier own rockets behind or through the cloud. Is this the intended use for the weapon, and do you think it nerfs proximity weapons too much? I'm personally inclined to think that its more likely that people will drop the field and try to use it as terrain or cover rather than try to hide inside it, and since you don't see why this is obvious (look at question #8 again) it leads me to believe - please don't take this badly - that you haven't fully thought through the idea despite your verbosity.
"Lighning mines would either target the cloud edge, or fail to function while inside the cloud"
10) I thought you designed the thing? So pick one and stand by your reasoning.
11) How does this weapon interact with friendly fire? Do 'friendly' rockets detonate against it too?
12) How rapidly can you fire this thing?
I personally feel that my ideas for a 'smoke mine' (which by the way evolved from the outline of someone else's good idea) and for a 'ECM field' are simplier and accomplish much the same things with much less complexity. With the exception of being a 'droppable' ecm field, I don't see what you are gaining here, and I'd personally think that an 'ECM mine' would be a simplier and more intuitive solution if you felt the need for a dropable countermeasure.
Lastly, with the exception of the offensive use of this weapon, which I'm opposed to incidently, I don't think you are gaining enough to justify losing the small slot on most if not all of ships we have now.
But I am a cynic, and a skeptic, and arrogant enough to believe that I have a reasonable idea of what makes for a good game so yes I am a naysayer. It's not my job - more of a hobby.
If the only thing I accomplish is keeping the programmers from getting bogged down, then I will feel like I accomplished more than I would have believed that I could .
I'm likely to complain about alot of things, but being verbose is not one of them. By all means, be technical and detailed.
But there is a difference between being technical and detailed in your description, and taking a concept that is inherently unbalanced, hanging a number of restrictions on it to make it balanced, looking at that and realizing that its exploitable, so putting a few other restrictions on it, then looking at it again and realizing that its too weak so adding a few additional advantages to it and so forth, and then realizing that you have to create a bunch of special cases because you originally made some assumptions that aren't universally true. That isn't being detailed. That is being inelegant, and your idea while not as extreme as my example, strikes me nonetheless as being inelegant.
I would proceed as follows:
1) What am I really trying to accomplish with my idea?
2) Is there a simplier way to accomplish my goals?
3) Repeat #2 until you can't think of one.
4) Is my idea predicated to a certain extent on the devs changing the game to suit my tastes? If so, return to #2.
I didn't say the idea was outrageous or even (necessarily) bad. I said I thought it was kludgy, rules heavy, and inelegant.
For that matter it isn't even detailed.
Answer the following questions:
1) What happens if the cloud intersects a solid object?
2) What if the solid object is smaller than the cloud?
3) What if the solid object is _much_ smaller than the cloud? Should physics take a back seat to versimilitude given the behavior intuitively expected by the average observer?
4) At what percentage of the clouds radiuses does the behavior change, if at all?
5) Is the cloud opaque? Semi-opaque? Translucent (and therefore not seen until its effects are observed)?
"Any proximity weapon launched while INSIDE the cloud would be scrambled, and fail to function as a proximity weapon. Alternately, they could regain proximity funtions after leaving the cloud, though this leads to greater possibilities for abuse."
6) What does 'fails to function' mean? Does it not have a proximity radius, but does detonate on impact? Does it not detonate at all?
7) Please more fully detail how you plan on dealing with the 'greater possibilities for abuse'.
"Such ships would be nearly invulnerable to attacks by proximity weapons"
8) Please explain this statement in the light of the fact that most proximity weapons have a much greater than 30m blast radius - rockets for instance have a blast radius of ~60m. Aren't you just making yourself a bigger target?
9) Explain how you will deal with people 'cloud ramming' enemy ships. That is to say, firing off one of these into the face of an enemy ship in order to negate the enemies rockets (and indeed to blow them up in thier face), and then firing thier own rockets behind or through the cloud. Is this the intended use for the weapon, and do you think it nerfs proximity weapons too much? I'm personally inclined to think that its more likely that people will drop the field and try to use it as terrain or cover rather than try to hide inside it, and since you don't see why this is obvious (look at question #8 again) it leads me to believe - please don't take this badly - that you haven't fully thought through the idea despite your verbosity.
"Lighning mines would either target the cloud edge, or fail to function while inside the cloud"
10) I thought you designed the thing? So pick one and stand by your reasoning.
11) How does this weapon interact with friendly fire? Do 'friendly' rockets detonate against it too?
12) How rapidly can you fire this thing?
I personally feel that my ideas for a 'smoke mine' (which by the way evolved from the outline of someone else's good idea) and for a 'ECM field' are simplier and accomplish much the same things with much less complexity. With the exception of being a 'droppable' ecm field, I don't see what you are gaining here, and I'd personally think that an 'ECM mine' would be a simplier and more intuitive solution if you felt the need for a dropable countermeasure.
Lastly, with the exception of the offensive use of this weapon, which I'm opposed to incidently, I don't think you are gaining enough to justify losing the small slot on most if not all of ships we have now.
And I quote from Suicidal Lemming:
i wish i had as much free time as you.
Yes, including spelling\grammar mistakes.
i wish i had as much free time as you.
Yes, including spelling\grammar mistakes.
In the interest of Brevity, I am only going to reply to point # 8 in the last post then give ol Cele a chance to rethink his rantings... A Rocket, with a 30m Proximity fuse and a 60m blast radius would detonate when it gets to within 30 meters of the edge of the cloud... DUh... therefore it would be 60m from the ship at the middle of the cloud... Duh again...
what about screamers, flares, avalons, and geminis? where will they detonate
Greg, Id have to side with Celebrim on this one, you need to think out all the implications of your idea and then change it and then see how it fits with the current weapons and then chang it again!
yes it does hurt your pirde/ego/whatever to see your idea shot at becuase it isnt well thought out, but it makes for a better idea. So rethink this, it IS a great Idea, it just is a bit...clumsy...
Greg, Id have to side with Celebrim on this one, you need to think out all the implications of your idea and then change it and then see how it fits with the current weapons and then chang it again!
yes it does hurt your pirde/ego/whatever to see your idea shot at becuase it isnt well thought out, but it makes for a better idea. So rethink this, it IS a great Idea, it just is a bit...clumsy...
Uh, humpty, Read the 1st post... All Proximity weapons treat the edge of the cloud as if it were a ship... How much clearer do I have to write it??? A weapon w/ a 10M prox would explode 10M from the cloud, a weapon w/ a 5m prox would detonate 5m from the cloud... I have thought this Idea through very carefully and have weighted the positives and negatives. The nice thing about this sytem is that (unlike so many other ideas on these boards) this is not a super weapon. IT provides very good protection agaist a certain class of weapons, but not without costs that must be considered by the user...
I dont care for the idea of ships letting out gas...it would look like everyone had too many beans. I shudder to think of the chat..."fart exploits" and whatnot...
you arent looking at the offensive capabilities of this weapon.
Say somebody mines a flag and you launch one of these at the mines, L-mines would overload them selves and blow up effectively de-mining, prox mines would just blow up. and what happens when you git an avalon with this thing and your inside it.
and about your duration, You need to decide on a duration ammo amout and whatnot. I feel that what you are aiming for is an invincibility shield.
You speak of costs, I ask, what are the costs of me filling up s7 with htese things? Just killing proximity on my own weaps wont do, I can still use things as contact missiles. for a nuke this wouldnt be very hard to do as you most likely know. a gemini as well, even though it has lost its prox it can still be a contact weapon
Underpowered, nay, balanced, nay, Uber? yes
think it over as if somebody was using this against YOU
or a 500 bot, I dont care, rethink your idea
Say somebody mines a flag and you launch one of these at the mines, L-mines would overload them selves and blow up effectively de-mining, prox mines would just blow up. and what happens when you git an avalon with this thing and your inside it.
and about your duration, You need to decide on a duration ammo amout and whatnot. I feel that what you are aiming for is an invincibility shield.
You speak of costs, I ask, what are the costs of me filling up s7 with htese things? Just killing proximity on my own weaps wont do, I can still use things as contact missiles. for a nuke this wouldnt be very hard to do as you most likely know. a gemini as well, even though it has lost its prox it can still be a contact weapon
Underpowered, nay, balanced, nay, Uber? yes
think it over as if somebody was using this against YOU
or a 500 bot, I dont care, rethink your idea