Forums » Suggestions
I stand by my suggestion to make the capships the "homes" of players. This way the game won't end up with everyone running around in capships and begging everyone else in their nation to step down from their own capship to run a fighter.
--
An alternative to "capship = house" would be to limit the number of capships in the universe, but that's IMHO a very poor initiative (very frustrating to players). There should be a balance to incitate players to use either sort of ships. I think making capships slow and poorly maneuverable could suffice, so that players would actually only enjoy flying them with a specific purpose (sector interdiction, convoy mission, etc...). Alternatively capships could be tied to particular missions.
Following on that there could be no distinct seperation between classes of ships, so we could get ships ranging from the very small Centurion to the very large Battle Cruiser (and its repair docking bay for the /group members), with middle classes such as large cargo ship or gunboats. That way more varying desires of players could be addressed. But this supposes tweaking the weapon and armor system already in use in VO to account for growing levels of protection with the size of the ship, something a shield system does very well : a shield with a specific recharge rate sets a minimum instant damage limit, so that weapons with damage under a given value fired continuously will be useless, slightly more powerful weapons would be very slow to kill a capship, and largely more powerful weapons would be advantaged, thus inciting capship VS capship fight or multiple fighters. The balance line should be that the default EC88 weapon is exactly compensated by the shield recharge rate of the largest ship.
On the other hand, if capships are kept distinct from other ships, then capship armament and fighter armament should be distinct as well, as Mirith explains better than I did. I'll just add that capships turrets could be auto-targeting (using bot targeting code ?) so that higher-skilled fighters harrassing a capship would call for a fighter defense fleet. Also, the anti-capship shots should be destroyable by fighters (an HP value on those big ion torpedoes ? ;) Make this HP number translate into damage upon impact).
Mirith also rises the point of persistence of the capships. Either we'll have super-large docking bays on sparse additional stations (has my preference), either the ships will stay in space when the owner is logged off, in which case they're vulnerable and the game needs an automated defense system (with a warning email sent to the player ?) or the instauration of no-fire zones within certain sectors (leaving it up to the owner to choose where to park his/her capship).
--
An alternative to "capship = house" would be to limit the number of capships in the universe, but that's IMHO a very poor initiative (very frustrating to players). There should be a balance to incitate players to use either sort of ships. I think making capships slow and poorly maneuverable could suffice, so that players would actually only enjoy flying them with a specific purpose (sector interdiction, convoy mission, etc...). Alternatively capships could be tied to particular missions.
Following on that there could be no distinct seperation between classes of ships, so we could get ships ranging from the very small Centurion to the very large Battle Cruiser (and its repair docking bay for the /group members), with middle classes such as large cargo ship or gunboats. That way more varying desires of players could be addressed. But this supposes tweaking the weapon and armor system already in use in VO to account for growing levels of protection with the size of the ship, something a shield system does very well : a shield with a specific recharge rate sets a minimum instant damage limit, so that weapons with damage under a given value fired continuously will be useless, slightly more powerful weapons would be very slow to kill a capship, and largely more powerful weapons would be advantaged, thus inciting capship VS capship fight or multiple fighters. The balance line should be that the default EC88 weapon is exactly compensated by the shield recharge rate of the largest ship.
On the other hand, if capships are kept distinct from other ships, then capship armament and fighter armament should be distinct as well, as Mirith explains better than I did. I'll just add that capships turrets could be auto-targeting (using bot targeting code ?) so that higher-skilled fighters harrassing a capship would call for a fighter defense fleet. Also, the anti-capship shots should be destroyable by fighters (an HP value on those big ion torpedoes ? ;) Make this HP number translate into damage upon impact).
Mirith also rises the point of persistence of the capships. Either we'll have super-large docking bays on sparse additional stations (has my preference), either the ships will stay in space when the owner is logged off, in which case they're vulnerable and the game needs an automated defense system (with a warning email sent to the player ?) or the instauration of no-fire zones within certain sectors (leaving it up to the owner to choose where to park his/her capship).
Well. . . . Everyone has an opinion :) So I might as well give mine. I believe the way to balance capital ships so as to not flood the game with them (ex: Everyone gets a capital ship) is to make them very expensive and available at very high lvl licenses. That way the veterans at this game will have them but you will also have your essential fighter base of players. I would like to see some smaller capital ships first though, before we enter the huge mammoth flying stations into the game. (just a suggestion) I agree with Chao in the "homes" of players suggestion to an extent. Players will probably not be able to buy a capital ship by themselves no matter how high lvl they are. (though i'm sure there will be some exceptions) So guilds will probably be the only player bases with capital ships.
Now about the Cap vs Cap vs Fighters situation. To wage an effective onslaught of a capital ship (for whatever reason) you would need to have a fighter base and of course a capital ship. (or just fighters but alot of em) First of all there will be fighters to take down fighters. Second there should be bombers that hold torpedo's or some big weapon that is effective enough against capital ships to take down a capital ship with JUST fighters. This of course would be hard because of the huge amount of hit points that capital ships will have. I say to make it even HARDER though capital ships should have shields. That way fighters can't go on hit and run operations untill the capital ship is dead (ex: running up to a capital ship with a fleet of bombers, firing full load of missiles or torps, then running off and reload/repair) Sure this would still be effective with shields but a whole lot less since shields automatically repair themselves with time, where as hit points you'd need to dock or do whatever capital ships will do to repair themselves.
Ok now onto the different types of Capital ships I would like to see. There should first off be some frigates or whatever. (I say frigates because I am used to homeworld II where the frigates are lower lvl than the Battlecruiser's/ destroyers) Just something that's got maybe 150k hitpoints to 300k or something in that range. That is of course based on the "frigate" that I saw in the screenshots section of the webpage. It was bigger than a few asteroids if my memory serves me well. I would just like to see something before that so that i'm not flying around in a little fighter for 2 years before I get enough credits for that ship :)
Okay I would also like to see some capital ships specifically designed to take down other capital ships. Maybe some powerful ion beam as their main weapon with some cool effects :) And big turrets that move slow but have decent auto targeting. Then maybe some smaller capital ships (but not just frigates) with anti fighter turrets. (which would still be rather slow moving but very powerful) Then there's the Missle Boats, Carriers, and Cruiser's/Battle Cruisers.
I'm sure whatever the designers do it will be awesome :)
/givemoney Devs 2c
Now about the Cap vs Cap vs Fighters situation. To wage an effective onslaught of a capital ship (for whatever reason) you would need to have a fighter base and of course a capital ship. (or just fighters but alot of em) First of all there will be fighters to take down fighters. Second there should be bombers that hold torpedo's or some big weapon that is effective enough against capital ships to take down a capital ship with JUST fighters. This of course would be hard because of the huge amount of hit points that capital ships will have. I say to make it even HARDER though capital ships should have shields. That way fighters can't go on hit and run operations untill the capital ship is dead (ex: running up to a capital ship with a fleet of bombers, firing full load of missiles or torps, then running off and reload/repair) Sure this would still be effective with shields but a whole lot less since shields automatically repair themselves with time, where as hit points you'd need to dock or do whatever capital ships will do to repair themselves.
Ok now onto the different types of Capital ships I would like to see. There should first off be some frigates or whatever. (I say frigates because I am used to homeworld II where the frigates are lower lvl than the Battlecruiser's/ destroyers) Just something that's got maybe 150k hitpoints to 300k or something in that range. That is of course based on the "frigate" that I saw in the screenshots section of the webpage. It was bigger than a few asteroids if my memory serves me well. I would just like to see something before that so that i'm not flying around in a little fighter for 2 years before I get enough credits for that ship :)
Okay I would also like to see some capital ships specifically designed to take down other capital ships. Maybe some powerful ion beam as their main weapon with some cool effects :) And big turrets that move slow but have decent auto targeting. Then maybe some smaller capital ships (but not just frigates) with anti fighter turrets. (which would still be rather slow moving but very powerful) Then there's the Missle Boats, Carriers, and Cruiser's/Battle Cruisers.
I'm sure whatever the designers do it will be awesome :)
/givemoney Devs 2c
quote "Well. . . . Everyone has an opinion :)"
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was airing an opinion, it was actually fact;P
Achieving balance through weapon design in really the only way to go. To quote from this page.. http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_GameBalancePart1.htm
"Ok, so balancing a game is damned hard. But how to we attempt it? The first step is designing checks and balances into a game from the start. Every unit in Starcraft has a strength and a weakness. Even basic strategies have strengths and weaknesses. Attacking early (at the expense of a strong economy) beats expanding early, but loses to defending early (if the defender can maintain a good economy and survive the attack). Defending early loses to expanding early. Checks and balances. You could even say, paper, rock, and scissors."
The same principle applies to small craft verses large craft, you need to check the cap ships to balance the small:)
But to demonstrate, lets take some other ideas to their natural conclusion.
"Cap ships should be Expensive."
Eventually all the players that have played for a long time get them, which turns out to be the majority of players. The devs might then move the goalposts by making things even more expensive. This eventually creates a massive gulf between new and old players. Effectively killing the game.
"Make it so only high level player can get them."
This is very similar to the first. It is (semi-)refered to on this page.. http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/balance/ as "Imbalances across Skill Levels".
quote "This is a common trap for game developers, since most are closer to the "Expert" side of things, and as a result often lose sight of the new player."
"limit the number by some hard-coded factor"
This is known as Forced advantage/disadvantage and is a definite negative.
"Only guilds should have them"
And what of Indy players? Forcing the guild system on players would result in alot of complaints. It would also draw players toward only the biggest and most popular guilds, spreading the imbalance to affect those aspects of the game too.
By all means, tho these things can all be present, to some degree, just so long as they are not the primary method of balance.
As a footnote, "like to see some capital ships specifically designed to take down other capital ships"
I would think that would be the Primary purpose of them. But being vunerable to bombers, they would need a fighter escort. Which is where carriers come in. These carriers would need ample warning to launch in time, which in turn is where sensor boats come in etc etc. Truely balanced mixed fleets would rock. I can't wait:)
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was airing an opinion, it was actually fact;P
Achieving balance through weapon design in really the only way to go. To quote from this page.. http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_GameBalancePart1.htm
"Ok, so balancing a game is damned hard. But how to we attempt it? The first step is designing checks and balances into a game from the start. Every unit in Starcraft has a strength and a weakness. Even basic strategies have strengths and weaknesses. Attacking early (at the expense of a strong economy) beats expanding early, but loses to defending early (if the defender can maintain a good economy and survive the attack). Defending early loses to expanding early. Checks and balances. You could even say, paper, rock, and scissors."
The same principle applies to small craft verses large craft, you need to check the cap ships to balance the small:)
But to demonstrate, lets take some other ideas to their natural conclusion.
"Cap ships should be Expensive."
Eventually all the players that have played for a long time get them, which turns out to be the majority of players. The devs might then move the goalposts by making things even more expensive. This eventually creates a massive gulf between new and old players. Effectively killing the game.
"Make it so only high level player can get them."
This is very similar to the first. It is (semi-)refered to on this page.. http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/balance/ as "Imbalances across Skill Levels".
quote "This is a common trap for game developers, since most are closer to the "Expert" side of things, and as a result often lose sight of the new player."
"limit the number by some hard-coded factor"
This is known as Forced advantage/disadvantage and is a definite negative.
"Only guilds should have them"
And what of Indy players? Forcing the guild system on players would result in alot of complaints. It would also draw players toward only the biggest and most popular guilds, spreading the imbalance to affect those aspects of the game too.
By all means, tho these things can all be present, to some degree, just so long as they are not the primary method of balance.
As a footnote, "like to see some capital ships specifically designed to take down other capital ships"
I would think that would be the Primary purpose of them. But being vunerable to bombers, they would need a fighter escort. Which is where carriers come in. These carriers would need ample warning to launch in time, which in turn is where sensor boats come in etc etc. Truely balanced mixed fleets would rock. I can't wait:)
I'll take the liberty of butting in a bit since it turned into generic game design (a bit of a hobby of mine, you could say) even thought I think the large ship debate is so covered/overcrowded it's not even funny.
If Vendetta is an RPG (see another thread in the Suggestions forum where I rant a bit about RPGs if you're interested in my angle), it makes little or no sense to ever make it feasible for one single player to get his/her hands on a capital ship. It doesn't really make sense in my book to have a Walmart selling capital ships to anyone with enough money either. Even if you're Gates, William Henry III and could quite feasibly buy an aircraft carrier, that doesn't mean that 'they' will let you - for obvious reasons.
Again, in my book, it makes more sense to pretty much give a capital ship to a group of players (guild) when it makes sense in the game. This doesn't mean that it's the best solution, mind.
Larger ships than there is ingame today is a whole other ballpark, though. Very big next to unarmed tanker? Sure. Anything that isn't a bigass warmachine by itself - i.e pretty much requires player cooperation to be useful - is good. Again, in my (maybe not very humble) opinion.
If Vendetta is an RPG (see another thread in the Suggestions forum where I rant a bit about RPGs if you're interested in my angle), it makes little or no sense to ever make it feasible for one single player to get his/her hands on a capital ship. It doesn't really make sense in my book to have a Walmart selling capital ships to anyone with enough money either. Even if you're Gates, William Henry III and could quite feasibly buy an aircraft carrier, that doesn't mean that 'they' will let you - for obvious reasons.
Again, in my book, it makes more sense to pretty much give a capital ship to a group of players (guild) when it makes sense in the game. This doesn't mean that it's the best solution, mind.
Larger ships than there is ingame today is a whole other ballpark, though. Very big next to unarmed tanker? Sure. Anything that isn't a bigass warmachine by itself - i.e pretty much requires player cooperation to be useful - is good. Again, in my (maybe not very humble) opinion.
quote "Well. . . . Everyone has an opinion :)"
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was airing an opinion, it was actually fact;P
Sorry I was not directing that toward you. I was just in awe by the many posts about capital ships :)
I'd like to comment on this though.
"Even if you're Gates, William Henry III and could quite feasibly buy an aircraft carrier, that doesn't mean that 'they' will let you - for obvious reasons."
Yes you are correct. To gain the political approval for a capital ship would be very hard indeed. That's why I believe the devs once mentioned that it may take a group of people for the political approval. But then again.... this is Vendetta :) Anything should be possible.... let's say the black market get's it's hold on a few capital ships. For the right price you can buy anything. (well to a degree the black market requires you to have 1 license lower than they will sell you or something like that) So in order to own a capital ship it would be much easier if a group of people owned one than a single person... but there's always those players who seem to be online 24/7 with money leaking out the L port :) So who knows what the devs will do. Either way I'm sure they will accomodate all who wish to spend every waking minute on this game. :P
/givemoney Devs 2c
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was airing an opinion, it was actually fact;P
Sorry I was not directing that toward you. I was just in awe by the many posts about capital ships :)
I'd like to comment on this though.
"Even if you're Gates, William Henry III and could quite feasibly buy an aircraft carrier, that doesn't mean that 'they' will let you - for obvious reasons."
Yes you are correct. To gain the political approval for a capital ship would be very hard indeed. That's why I believe the devs once mentioned that it may take a group of people for the political approval. But then again.... this is Vendetta :) Anything should be possible.... let's say the black market get's it's hold on a few capital ships. For the right price you can buy anything. (well to a degree the black market requires you to have 1 license lower than they will sell you or something like that) So in order to own a capital ship it would be much easier if a group of people owned one than a single person... but there's always those players who seem to be online 24/7 with money leaking out the L port :) So who knows what the devs will do. Either way I'm sure they will accomodate all who wish to spend every waking minute on this game. :P
/givemoney Devs 2c
All it comes down to is this. Do the Devs want to focus on Fighter to Fighter, or Massive space battles. If they want to just do fighter on fighter, then all that should happen are Capital Ships support fighters.
Compared to Massive space battles, in which 8 capital ships start duking it out each with their complements of fighters fighting. This would require being able to equip a Cap ship with weapons, and a crew complement.
Or do we just want them smaller, and just multiple person, or even one person, really freakin' heavy ships with lots of cargo, weapons and armor. This would just be now, except more mass and such. Problem with the last thing is that seems like it would just overbalance the game.
Compared to Massive space battles, in which 8 capital ships start duking it out each with their complements of fighters fighting. This would require being able to equip a Cap ship with weapons, and a crew complement.
Or do we just want them smaller, and just multiple person, or even one person, really freakin' heavy ships with lots of cargo, weapons and armor. This would just be now, except more mass and such. Problem with the last thing is that seems like it would just overbalance the game.
Two words, guild missions.