View Full Version : Weapon discussion: Vehicle combat category
There are a few additional factors that play a role for vehicle combat we will present in this discussion.
When balancing the vehicle weapons, we did not treat them differently than the normal weapons – therefore they have been balanced like the other weapons in their category (Heavy Combat).
As usual we are starting with the general definitions for all weapon classes.
Damage (per time unit):
- APU Weapons 100 %
- Cannons 90 %
- Rifles 80 %
- Pistols 75 %
- Melee Weapons 65 %
Bonus-System:
- HighTech Weapons + 5 % (additive)
- Rare Weapons + 7.5 % (exclusive)
- Epic Weapons + 9.5 % (exclusive)
- WoC Weapons + 10 % (exclusive)
Furthermore, additional weapon properties could change for rare, epic or WoC weapons: clip size, firing frequency, range etc.
Aim speed (1.50 – 4.50 Seconds, Min | Max):
- Melee Weapons deactivated
- PPU Weapons deactivated
- APU Weapons 0.75 1.50
- Pistols 0.75 2.25
- Rifles 1.00 3.00
- Cannons 2.00 4.50
Note: Smaller is better.
Aim precision (Reticule, Min | Max):
- APU Weapons 1.50 3.00
- Rifles 1.50 3.50
- Pistols 1.50 4.00
- Cannons 1.50 5.00
Note: Smaller is better.
Firing frequency (45 – 120 shots/minute, Min | Max):
- Rifles 45 120
- Pistols 30 120
- Melee Weapons 40 60
- APU Weapons 30 60
- Cannons 15 45
Range (50 – 600 Meters, Min | Max):
- Cannons 300 600
- Rifles 200 600
- APU Weapons 100 300
- Pistols 50 150
- Melee Weapons Striking distance (+ tolerance factor)
Clip Size
The clip size for vehicle weapons is generally somewhat larger compared to their H-C counterparts.
Changes to the vehicle damage model:
Health points / vehicle Units:
This area has been reviewed and adjusted – depending on the vehicle types, the health point values can go up to 16000. The vehicle Units can be restored with a repair tool.
If a vehicle is completely destroyed, an explosion damaging everything around the vehicle (including its passengers) is triggered. The force of the explosion depends on the vehicle’s weight.
Modified armor concept:
The general armor settings for all vehicles are a thing of the past – each vehicle now has its own setup. The armor value is used to calculate a resistance factor against a specific damage type, lowering its damage – this armor value is reduced when damage is being taken. The armor (and the resulting resistance) can therefore be shot down. When a vehicle is repaired, its armor values rise again with the vehicle Units.
Damage transfer to the vehicle:
When a runner uses a vehicle (independent from the seat he occupies), the damage is completely transferred to the vehicle. The system where part of the damage was transferred to the player has been removed.
Vehicle Combat Ranks:
A vehicle’s combat rank is determined by its weapon (if the corresponding seat is occupied) – everyone in the vehicle has the same combat rank. Only the people involved in combat (Driver, Gunner) will receive any experience points – this rule overrides any team experience rules.
Anti-Vehicle Weapons:
The „Anti Vehicle Rocket Launcher“ (AntiGround and AntiAir) are still available. They have been balanced as normal H-C weapons – a special damage type ensures that they destroy vehicle fast and more efficiently than normal weapons.
We avoided any other changes (i.e. to the driving physics) so the balancing project wouldn’t be held up too much. The current properties like speed will therefore remain the same for now.
Examples: Vehicles
Example #1: NEXT Rhino4x4 Chaincraft V.2
Vehicle Setup:
Units: 12000 HealthPoints
Weight: 9600 Kg
Armor: 90 % Force
70 % Piercing
95 % Fire
65 % Energy
65 % X-Ray
100 % Poison
Weaponry:
Weapon: NEXT VHC Laser Cannon
Category: Heavy Combat, HighTech
TechLevel: 90
Modus: Single Shot
Aim speed: 3.44 Seconds (76 %)
Aim precision: 3.43 Reticule start size (69 %)
Clip: 48 Shots
Real Firing Frequency: 32.60 / Minute
Range: 548.40 Meter
Ammo: NEXT VHC Laser Cannon Powercell, 48 Units, 1040 Gramm
Damage per shot: 409.3280 (Energy)
Damage per minute: ca. 13335
Beispiel #2: NEXT ER Combat Chaincraft V.1
Vehicle Setup:
Units: 6400 HealthPoints
Weight: 940 Kg
Armor: 80 % Force
70 % Piercing
90 % Fire
65 % Energy
65 % X-Ray
100 % Poison
Weaponry:
Weapon: NEXT VHC 20mm Cannon
Category: Heavy Combat, LowTech
TechLevel: 61
Modus: Burst (4)
Aim speed: 3.81 Seconds (84 %)
Aim precision: 3.98 Reticule start size (79 %)
Clip: 80 Shots
Real Firing Frequency: 141.20 / Minute
Range: 480.47 Meter
Ammo: NEXT VHC 20mm Cannon Ammo, 80 Units, 2980 Gramm
Damage per shot: 49.0803 (Force, Piercing)
Damage per minute: ca. 6928
Beispiel #3: NEXT Heavy Assault Scorpion Trike
Vehicle Setup:
Zustand: 7800 HealthPoints
Weight: 1980 Kg
Armor: 85 % Force
70 % Piercing
90 % Fire
65 % Energy
65 % X-Ray
100 % Poison
Weaponry (Driver):
Weapon: NEXT VHC Triple Rocket Launcher
Category: Heavy Combat, LowTech
TechLevel: 88
Modus: Burst (3)
Aim speed: 3.28 Seconds (73 %)
Aim precision: 3.20 Reticule start size (64 %)
Clip: 36 Shots
Real Firing Frequency: 45.35 / Minute
Range: 815.63 Meter (150 %)
Ammo: NEXT VHC Rocket Packet, 36 Units, 3460 Gramm
Damage per shot: 269.9813 (Force, Fire)
Damage per minute: ca. 12251
Weaponry (Gunner):
Weapon: NEXT VHC 20mm Cannon
Category: Heavy Combat, LowTech
TechLevel: 79
Modus: Burst (4)
Aim speed: 3.46 Seconds (77 %)
Aim precision: 3.46 Reticule start size (69 %)
Clip: 80 Shots
Real Firing Frequency: 141.20 / Minute
Range: 522.60 Meter
Ammo: NEXT VHC 20mm Cannon Ammo, 80 Units, 2980 Gramm
Damage per shot: 73.1240 (Force, Piercing)
Damage per minute: ca. 10323
Note:
When both seats are occupied, the Heavy Assault Scorpion Trike’s combat rang is considered 84 (TL 88 + TL 79 / 2).
Beispiel #4: Advanced Assault Glider
Vehicle Setup:
Units: 5800 HealthPoints
Weight: 640 Kg
Armor: 85 % Force
75 % Piercing
95 % Fire
80 % Energy
80 % X-Ray
100 % Poison
Weaponry (Pilot):
Weapon: DoY VHC Gatlin Cannon
Category: Heavy Combat, LowTech
TechLevel: 82
Modus: Burst (4)
Aim speed: 3.40 Seconds (76 %)
Aim precision: 3.38 Reticule start size (68 %)
Clip: 100 Shots
Real Firing Frequency: 200.00 / Minute
Range: 423.75 Meter
Ammo: NEXT VHC Gatlin Cannon Explosive Ammo, 100 Units, 1980 Gramm
Damage per shot: 54.7446 (Force, Piercing)
Damage per minute: ca. 10948
Weaponry (Gunner):
Weapon: DoY VHC Advanced Bomb Thrower
Category: Heavy Combat, LowTech
TechLevel: 98
Modus: Single Shot
Aim speed: 3.09 Seconds (69 %)
Aim precision: 2.92 Reticule start size (58 %)
Clip: 8 Shots
Real Firing Frequency: 18.46 / Minute
Range: 567.20 Meter
Ammo: NEXT VHC Vehicle Bomb Packet, 24 Units, 6400 Gramm
Damage per shot: 789.4072 (Force, Piercing, Fire)
Damage per minute: ca. 14573
Good to see the vehicles getting balanced too. I, like many others, have wanted the expoding vehicles to cause their own damage for ages. Sadly though, this will probably mean a renewed interest in runners targeting vehicles for their own amusement. Ah well, still good stuff. :D
Will the Reveller now absorb more damage than it currently does? It often frustrates me that 99% of the time it seems to do nothing when I'm fired upon. I know it's an open vehicle but even when facing a mob head on it still seems to do nothing to protect me. Perhaps more frustratingly, when I'm out of the vehicle buffing myself *snigger* and crouched behind the ample sized rear wheels/tracks, it again seems to do little to protect me.
Do the Combat versions of some vehicles have more hitpoints? As I think combat versions of some vehicles should be stronger than the normal version.
So using the example above the NEXT ER Combat Chaincraft V.1 has 6400 hitpoints, where I would expect the non combat (NEXT ER Chaincraft V.1) version to have less (Say 6000)
Why does it have to be energy that does the most damage to vehicles?
Monks ftw?
o_O
Rifles and pistols do energy damage as well. And a monk cannot use xrr.
Dribble Joy
20-10-06, 18:57
And heavy... and melee...
I would like to remind you that this is a discussion. So if you think you have a better armorconcept for our vehiclesetups feel free to post this here. We will see if we like your suggestions ...
The combat versions are better in their hitpoint-amount and sometimes in speed (or similar things). I think better armor would make no sense - it's still the same vehicle.
So CS does 18k dmg, and rhino does 13k dmg...
Balancing it by tl seems stupid if your only gonna have guns up to tl80. I thought the point was to get more people using vehicles
As for the armor decreasing with damage, I think all it does is confuse the player and the vehicle health bar will end up being a really bad indicator for how long your vehicle can last with it's current health.
Cmaster just pointed out to me that the HC weapons on vehicles are weak.
From the looks of it you have used the same damage figures as Heavy Combat weapons, which is a little daft, considering vehicles can't move so much as a runner (Assault bike) or they require teamwork. (DoY Bomber)
So at this time, I say back to the drawing board on those damage figures, you need a higher value on Cannon Damage for vehicles.
raise the TLs (not the requirements) of the vehicle weapons.
115 should NOT be the max (ie the bomber). I think its safe to say people are okay with dying in one-two hits from the bomber, and 4-5 from the rhino... maybe the TLs could use a HUGE boost in this concept.
I'm actually quite contempt with the damage vehicles presently do... but the resistances could use some difference between vehicles.
energy and xray doing the most damage doesn't make logical sense, metal doesn't really have a tendency to be damaged all that much by electricity or the likes... I'd go more for a poison doing 15% of its normal damage to the passengers inside... and 0% damage to the vehicle, and having force and then pierce the most viable weapons against vehicles... so maybe max those at 70% resistance(more pierce than force resist.. explosions should do well against vehicles)... and have energy-xray at about a 90% max amount... fire probably at about 80% max, seeing as heat shouldn't really effect vehicles too much either. These are all hypothetical figures obviously... but they seem more viable than the presented ones to me at least, perhaps they'll give more of a general idea of what should be.
-my 2 cents
You have to remember this is about vehicle balance, this means balance vs runners aswell. What I mean is with APUs being so weak, if vehicles were second most resistant to energy, no monk would stand a chance because of them being 'glass cannons', except you'd be taking away the 'cannon' concept of it.
Not really saying a lone APU vs a vehicle should be a matched fight (APU should still lose), but it's something you have to consider when you find an APU vs vehicle in a group environment, such as an OP war.
But I am kind of in agreement that a vehicle would be way more vulnerable to force (perhaps not as much so to piercing) than energy and xray. Tough choice, no?
Vehicles now seem to be like this, to me... The advantage is you're sat there firing forever and soaking up damage. Lots of armour being the primary advantage. If you stood there with a CS shooting non-stop as a vehicle does, you'd die, but I think it's right you'd do more damage - but the armour here is the advantage, not firepower.
The explosion effect is VERY interesting though, and could offer a whole new aspect to driving. It could being tradeskillers into op-wars and combat, which, I think - vehicles should.
Perhaps the explosion effect could be used to put people in highly fragile vehicles, with insane firepower - but the resulting explosion would kill / take 95% of the passenger's health. This could give you guys a lot of variation to play with between vehicles, rather than the traditional tank... Naturally, this would mean that the explosion should do different damage to passengers and surrounding runners/enemies for fear of kamikaze-style missions in highly combat-oriented vehicles.
The explosion effect has many sexy aspects, but namely kamikaze style gliders! I'd think about making weight of a vehicle being (usually) the general factor when deciding the damage this explosion deals, but for some things such as gliders, perhaps take into account the fuel-tank size or energy reserves for weapons, and let people plough into groups of people, huge fireball killing the driver and severely damaging the enemies around the fireball. That would be fun! (Though I don't know about how balanced it would be... :P) This could even result in tradeskillers being highly adept at driving kami drones (effectively), where both the vehicle and the driver die. Tradeskillers would be valuable at ops... I like that thought.
And Dogface: about your sig. I shouldn't admit this, but I'm posting after drinking, so... Once, a good few years ago, I drank baileys. And got a beer flush from it... with three older brothers, I'm still living that down. :(
Apocalypsox
21-10-06, 00:16
WOOT! *Goes to ressurect Desert Rider/The DRT Madman To fly scout gliders into people!
(In regards to the vehicle dieing Explosion damage thing)
On a more serious note, will you guys be adding slight AoE to the Assualt Gliders missle weapon? It is very hard to dive bomb something, lock onto it, and then fire because by the time you get to the fireing process your either A.) Losing your glider to the ground or B.) Forgetting your target and pulling up to save your soul.
Heavyporker
21-10-06, 00:59
I have to say I'm seriously afraid for the future of vehicles now....
Vehicle weapons weaker than HAND-HELD cannons?! And what about versus OTHER vehicles? If it's going to take forever and half if it was a rhino vs rhino situation... urgh! I'm sorry, but I simply must insist that vehicular weapons return to their old strength to retain their usefulness.
Not to mention I haven't seen any hint that the Scout Trike is going to get its driving requirements lowered... nor of the scout glider's pilot requirements getting lowered... Massively unbalanced when one considers the situation for each. I'm aware that the Scout Trike has a tail gun. So? It's crappy in so many ways, and the Jeep has far lower driving requirements and the gun on it does WAAAAY more damage (currently)!
And let's not forget: there are still control issues for several vehicles that severely impair them in any combat situation! I'd call that unbalancing!
Also, I *must* bring up that for gliders, air vs. ground combat seems to be quite nasty in its difficulty. I do not forsee much more aerial dueling in the future, even with these changes.
May I request for aiming purposes, perhaps glider rockets should be treated as rocketpistols (very fast aim)? I suppose if one must tie it to a particular weapon type, the damage could suffer considerably... still, to make it remotely usable in a commoner situation might be worth it.
KK, well this is balance.......... and i kinda hate to bring it up here, but..... vehicle balancing.
TANK SHOCK!!!!. Guys come on a 9000lb Rhino hits you and does no damage????!?!?!?!?!? I thihnk a vehicle should do damage to runners outside of it based on speed moving and weight *probably to much to ask* however I expect that you all (KK) assumed someone would bring it up. This would also somewhat decrease its effectiveness if team runners arent organized. This would give vehicles a GOOD reason to be ina fight. and maybe hitting someone straight on would stun them if it doesnt kill them since it would REALLY HURT YOU
I think its stupid a monk or other char can be attacking the rhino and you can run them over but they gently get pushed out of the way
Dribble Joy
21-10-06, 03:38
A significant degree of impact damage would be far too open to abuse, not to mention removing a significant amount of skill from PvP.
As to vehicle dmg/time; whether it is above or below a solo player's output is largely irrelevant so long as balance is maintained.
One problem is the assumption of the number of people active in the deployment of a vehicle, and thus where the balancing of a vehicle should lie. 2 people? 3 people? should a rhino be equal to any other two man team (be it apu/ppu, pe/tank or whatever)?
More thoughts when I am a bit more sober....
is anything chaged to pevent that ppl get easy shoot out of the vhc seat without damaging the vhc ?
in think that is the main problem on vhc.
Is this intentionally a massive vhc nerf? no one is gonna be rhino lvling anymore when it requires 2 people to do less damage than a CS or something.. agreed the fact you can't personally get hurt is a bonus, but i think it's stupid to nerf the damage of vhcs this badly, i'd say make them all do at least 1.5x the damage you've given them..
Vehicle explosion damage is damn cool, d'ya think we could have *moderate* collision damage as well? ;D enough to kill a 20/20 or something by running them over, but like 80ish damage at the most to capped chars.. not overpowered but can still add some comedy in some situations =]
Also would it be amazingly hard to impliment a new way of entering the vhc, giving the vhc different targetboxes for the driver seat and gunner seats.. after 2.2 of course =]
On the whole vehicles are pretty much perfect the way they are already imo, oh and a big NO at the armour getting "damaged" and becoming useless, it really is a horrible idea allround, for mobs and vhcs =[
I too fail to see what is to be gained by having mob/vehicle armor :confused:
Resists are fine, but armor that decreases with dmg is not fine.
Heavyporker
21-10-06, 15:53
It's extremely realistic that armor weakens with damage! I'm totally fine with that aspect, I support it.
It's the FRIGGING DAMAGE NERF THAT HAS ME UP IN ARMS!
If this damage nerf that they're speaking of isn't changed, then it is OBVIOUS the balancing forums are just here for us to bitch and argue at eachother while they do whatever they want anyway.
It's extremely realistic that armor weakens with damage! I'm totally fine with that aspect, I support it.
It's the FRIGGING DAMAGE NERF THAT HAS ME UP IN ARMS! Wouldn't it be better to just adjust the max health of the vehicle?
It hardly adds anything to the game, yet it means that it will be very hard to estimate how long your vehicle can last with it's remaining health. Completely unnecesary
Heavyporker
21-10-06, 19:32
Let's see... up the health of the vehicle... got to up the damage of anti-vec launchers, then, and you of course *have* to up the damage of a lot of weapons, vehicles included, just so it doesn't take 20 minutes to blow up a civilian chaincraft bike... then you got to do even more balancing after all that.
Hmm...
Or you could just up the damage on the vehicular weapons so they are actually usable in future combat and hunting operations.
Hmmm.. I can't decide...
Let's see... up the health of the vehicle... got to up the damage of anti-vec launchers, then, and you of course *have* to up the damage of a lot of weapons, vehicles included, just so it doesn't take 20 minutes to blow up a civilian chaincraft bike... then you got to do even more balancing after all that.
Hmm...
Or you could just up the damage on the vehicular weapons so they are actually usable in future combat and hunting operations.
Hmmm.. I can't decide... I think you misunderstood a little bit. I'm just argueing that a linear health decrease is much more sensible than non-linear health decrease. If you going to make the vehicle die faster after a certain amount of damage, then why not just decrease the total health so that it ends up taking the exact same time to kill, but without making the health bar being a bad indication of how long your vehicle has left before it blows.
Dribble Joy
21-10-06, 21:07
You could add an armour bar, or some other means of guaging how much armour is left, but again.. not exactly necessary....
You could add an armour bar, or some other means of guaging how much armour is left, but again.. not exactly necessary.... Yeh, but why make a solution when you don't need to have the problem :D
Dribble Joy
21-10-06, 21:29
Exactly.
WOOT! *Goes to ressurect Desert Rider/The DRT Madman To fly scout gliders into people!
(In regards to the vehicle dieing Explosion damage thing)
On a more serious note, will you guys be adding slight AoE to the Assualt Gliders missle weapon? It is very hard to dive bomb something, lock onto it, and then fire because by the time you get to the fireing process your either A.) Losing your glider to the ground or B.) Forgetting your target and pulling up to save your soul.
or even a step further and make that reticle on gliders close faster. the glider is meant to be fast, but it goes so fast that u cant lock on to a target and pull up in time so that u dont crash. the problem i usually hav is dive bombing and hitting myself wit the missle cuz the glider goes faster than the missle itself :/ fire the missle, and pull up right into it lol
Dribble Joy
21-10-06, 22:55
Regarding vehicle weapons, why not have different versions?
Like a v2.0 rhino with a str 60 gat cannon, a v2.1 with a str 80 rocket launcher and a v2.2 with a str 105 laser?
Re. gliders: How about no recticle, but current monk style. With non seeking rockets?
Apocalypsox
22-10-06, 00:01
i dunno...i still like AoE rockets though..
i dunno...i still like AoE rockets though.. would be good if they travelled fast, and did very high dmg
Dribble Joy
22-10-06, 00:57
Well clearly AoE, otherwise you'd never be able to hit anything but a mob.
Small radius probably, but little loss of dmg with distance from point of impact, so that skill in prempting movements remains without making it impossible for all but the best players.
Heavyporker
22-10-06, 03:11
Heh, let's not forget even mobs can move fast enough to dodge rockets.
I strongly support AoE or improved control over glider-launched rockets.
Clive tombstone
22-10-06, 20:35
Could we make Repair nanos Cloneable again?
just throwing that out there.
But yeah, Monk aiming for gliders is a MUST, sure they dont have to be seeking, but AoE monk aim would be great. Also for tanks, It would be great if they re-fit the crafting and item system for vehicles in them selves, allowing them to be modified in creation as well as AFTER the creation as well (I changed out my cars engine before, about 5 years after it was made, why cant I do that for my hovertech? =P) This would apply to all matters vehicle though.
As for the tank, man I dont like the damage drop, its bad enough already that if your going PvP, that a PPU shows up and the rhino sucks then, and now hunting would be even more dangerous, as it would take even longer to kill mobs (thus allowing more damage to occure to the tank, taking more repair nanos).
Ohh, one thing Id like to see on a Glider by the way, was inspired from when i got to tour the air craft, and our last air show. The apachy heli has a swivle gatling gun at its nose that aims according to where the pilot is looking at the moment, why cant the glider pilot get one of those^^
Ive written up a huge thing about vehicles in the past, it has tables and whatnot, and all that other jazz id email it to someone if they'd like to see it.
But to sum up
1) Gliders Reg's are too high, and need to be cut in half.
2) Gliders Armaments need to be redone (pilot weapons all changed to gats, and the bombs changed to pintle mounted rockets)
3) The Trikes and the Reviler need to have cockpits to cover the drivers completely
4) the Rhino as a MBT is dire
5) there needs to be a 1 man version of the Rhino
6) Ground vehicles for PE's Air For spies, and the vehicles need to scale accordingly
Bozz-Von Mel
23-10-06, 14:28
Rhino
Units: 12000 HealthPoints
Weight: 9600 Kg
Armor: 90 % Force
70 % Piercing
95 % Fire
65 % Energy
65 % X-Ray
100 % Poison
Energy and X-ray lower than piercing ? Is the vehicle considered "armored". Low energy leaves it so vulnerable to APU with HL. Anyone who understands modern armored warfare knows that the most dangerous weapon to armor is a high velocity but relativley small kinetic projectile. X-ray: Most gamma rays are absorbed or deflected by the dense armor material. Energy I could accept being near equal to piercing, high temperature lasers melting steel. Forcing someone to use a special anti-vehicle launcher is perfect. What about weaker armor on the back and top and near impenitrable fromt he front ?
Clive tombstone
23-10-06, 19:04
I agree with comi for the most part except here
6) Ground vehicles for PE's Air For spies, and the vehicles need to scale accordingly
honestly it was stupid to set up reqs like this in the first place giving this stuff to spies. THey already have a lot of nice stuff, and giving them all the high end transport was anouther hack job if you ask me. Transport is transport, (with the exception of the bomber Id say) and the reqs like Ive made posts before about, are illogical, as like theyre ground counterparts, in no way reflect theyre ground bretheren (IE Techlv Equals required Int lv, come on, rhino 60int, tl 60 etc)
Also, the cockpits for the scorps and revs need to be "reworked" not covered I think. the scorp needs more coverage in some ways, but not complete I think, by itself its pretty damn strong, and making the pilot invulnerable may be too much (a single, to 2 salvos can take out a spy or APU easily, at least I could in the past^^) but yes, as it stand for trikers, they're basically laid out on top of the hood with a large (shoot me) sign on them, its not that much better ether for the revlers ether. So the solution would probably be to change the models up a little and then also work around "aiming at the vehicle, and aiming at the player" as it stands you can "aim" through the vehicle, and at the player, silly if you ask me.
just wondering, but with the whole armour degrading thing, would that mean it's really easy to keep vehicles at full health cause the first bit takes the longest to break, it would be easy to keep it full health? which sucks.. ur creating problems imo..
and just to throw something out there.. a few people have said they've had a 1st person view in a vhc from getting bugged, just wondering why not unlock 1st person for vhcs if it's possible already .. i guess it would be *stupid* to ask for a playable 1st person screen.. ie, i don't want to die from a sezure every time someone uses fire on me and i have a shelter.. and an option to turn off the gun display.. speedgat covers half the screen?
Apocalypsox
24-10-06, 00:15
1) Gliders Reg's are too high, and need to be cut in half.
2) Gliders Armaments need to be redone (pilot weapons all changed to gats, and the bombs changed to pintle mounted rockets)
3) The Trikes and the Reviler need to have cockpits to cover the drivers completely
4) the Rhino as a MBT is dire
5) there needs to be a 1 man version of the Rhino
6) Ground vehicles for PE's Air For spies, and the vehicles need to scale accordingly
........what? this wouldnt accomplish much...any of it...
and people that want to cover all the vehicles just hate us rifle spies :mad:
Dribble Joy
24-10-06, 01:00
just wondering, but with the whole armour degrading thing, would that mean it's really easy to keep vehicles at full health cause the first bit takes the longest to break, it would be easy to keep it full health? which sucks.. ur creating problems imo..
Indeed, though it may be the intention that to take on a vehicle you require specialist equipment (anti vehicle weapons or another tank), of course that leaves us with the issue of what a small group of people could do against an attacking vehicle.
A wider range of anti vehicle stuff (anti veh mod for mini launchers and sniper rifles pweeeeze) would help.
Though I doubt that people are going to jump out of their rhino to rep it in the middle of a fight (unless they are LEed of course :rolleyes:).
Apocalypsox
24-10-06, 02:17
armor degrading gave me an idea...would be cool if you could change the models so when player took X amount of damage from this side of vehicle, it got a big dent in the side of the armor.
Dribble Joy
24-10-06, 02:55
Direction visual damage is unlikely, but general visual damage has been a desire for ages.
Or, you can make the armor vulnerable to, say, piercing/force (piercing/force does, say, 70% damage to armor but only 20% to life,), but make the life of the veh vulnerable to energy (energy does 75% damage to veh life but only 15% damage to its armor.) Other damage types, such as fire, poison, etc., would be steady percentile numbers, like they are in the proposed models, with the veh having high or full armor against them (90-100%,) and the life only being slightly less armored against them (80-90%.)
So, this would cause a focus on groups attacking vehs with different weapons. One to damage the armor initally (enter a HC tank,) then a switch to another player or weapon to damage the veh's life (enter the APU or rifle spy for the coup de gras.) They could use just one, be it a HL or a missile of some sort, but the resulting destruction time for the veh would be dramatically increased compared to the combined weapons' time, as the HC weapon would initially be good, but it's usefulness would die out as the armor goes down, and the energy weapon is initally pitiful, but gets quite deadly when the armor's down. This would produce veh killer squads (with the added possibility of someone carrying the new anti-veh rockets to boot.) They would be anti-veh, but suffer against other players, and vice versa. Also, it would eliminate the option of one person going head to head with a rhino easily, unless they carry multiple types of weapons (and even if they do, the secondary weapon would typically be low tl due to speccing.)
On a side note, this takes care of the LE characters repairing their buddy's veh in the middle of combat, as the enemy can pound away at the veh life or armor when it's damaged and destroy it faster than the LE character can repair it :)
For this to work without major inconvenience to the veh controllers, there would need to be separate armor and life bars. The bars would be the even percentage swing in damage for the two types, ie. if the armor is at 100%, then no life bar damage. Once the armor goes to 80%, then 20% goes to life and 80% to armor, 90-10, 60-40, 50-50, 30-70, etc. continuing ratios. This results in the fact that, when the armor in a veh is pretty much gone, much of its life would be quite vulnerable to energy attacks (and really, what the heck's left protecting it anyways?)
I believe this balances weapon damage on the veh vs. characters out of veh, if the weapons are simply done proportionately and not completely gimped, if the explosion rule goes into effect.
For the explosion, I would make it pretty great for those within the veh (say, enough to kill a spy, have a PE at near death, and mess a tank up fairly badly,) causing mass bailouts when the veh is near its end, as should be the case, with medium amounts of damage to those around it, but in a small area. Let's face it, in reality, if your tank bites it, you've got a pretty good chance of biting it, too, or at least of getting pretty messed up.
This way, the enemy doesn't come in with a tank, wait until it explodes, then waltzes out unscathed and mops up the enemies that the tank couldn't polish off. But, it still gives the tank crew a large benefit if they do bring the tank to the party as they don't get damaged prior to the veh exploding as they have the opportunity to 1. destroy the enemy before that happens, or 2. bail before the veh explodes.
Oh, and the armor/life meter should only be viewable to the gunner and driver for those vehs that transport others. This would also call for screams of "get the f*ck out! Move Move MOVE!" LOL
Oh, and I would recommend having the image of the veh degrade for those attacking it to know what the damage to the armor they've done is (degrade the image for armor damage only.) This way, the attackers have some idea when to switch to energy weapons and aren't left diddling their thumbs :P
Apocalypsox
24-10-06, 06:52
tbh there should be an anti tank rifle, one shot (takes up a whole box of 7.62 ammo) And takes a while to reload, but does a hell load of damage per shot to a tanks armor.
Clive tombstone
24-10-06, 07:25
Sounds Interesting. certainly making vehicles harder to kill is an interesting factor, even more adding more collision damage would make those of abusing a vehicles "phasable" body would be in for a sore supprise as well.
While were still on topic, would it ever be a bad idea to possibly add "Hangers" to the outsides of each city? you know appropriate launch pads for gliders (runways and so forth). Which leads me to my final question also. The dome has gliders, and such, but does Neocron itself actually have any flying vehicles of its own that they use for combat (Story wise?)
One thing is needed, the requs of the Advanced Assault Glider should be slightly modified so we no longer have to drug up while using it... Drugs + Flying = Hell, especialy before changing zones... As for the normal Assault Glider, I d'say damage needs to be slightly increased, or make the rockets like the ones of a mr1000 drone, because when you fight with a glider, you generaly dive, shoot, pull up, circle for about 10-15 seconds to get back to your target and shoot at it again... In that time, lots of healing can be done ;).
That said, your first kill with an assault glider is fun, and flying around with one is quite nice too!
Based on your comments regarding the suggested armor concept, we want to propose a modified concept. The protection against classic damage types will be considerably increased and will be situated between 90 and 100 percent (poison damage will be completely ignored) – the only weakness will be the lacking protection against special anti-vehicle weapons.
... how we see „Vehicle-Combat“
The advantages of vehicle combat as we see them are the additional protection (for closed vehicles), the (generally) higher speed and the possibility to use the air space. The disadvantages are the reduced mobility and the bigger hit boxes.
Therefore we do not consider a notable increase in damage generation sensible – however we have decided, based your feedback, to boost the vehicle weapons by improving their handling. Aim speed, aim precision and range will be considerably improved, because they are fixed weapons.
Overview:
- Damage: 90 % (equivalent to H-C Combat)
- Aim speed: 2.25 seconds (equivalent to P-C Combat)
- Aim precision: 3.00 (equivalent to APU Combat)
- Range: 650 meters (50 meters further than H-C or R-C)
... concerning new vehicles
We really do not want to put you off – we simply want to keep the additional expenditures until the start of the test server low. It is however possible to create variations of existing vehicles: Suggest some new vehicle variations or comment on suggestions made by other players! As long as these suggestions are valid and can be implemented, we will try to satisfy some of your wishes.
To put a real world example to why I think the damages should be higher for vehicles.
A 30mm bullet will hurt a lot more than a 7.62mm bullet.
Also some people say the vehicle requirements for gliders is too high, which I don't agree with. Maybe lower the requirements down by a few VCH points.
While on the subject of possible vehicle variations, I would sugguest introducing the DoY prototype glider or for NC, the NExT prototype glider. The requirements would be a lot less of the normal scout glider to say INT 30 VCH 62, but the disadvantage of the prototype glider would be it has half the hit points and is a lot slower than the normal glider. (Since it is a prototype glider!)
Then people who want to try gliders, can try them.
To put a real world example to why I think the damages should be higher for vehicles.
A 30mm bullet will hurt a lot more than a 7.62mm bullet.
Also some people say the vehicle requirements for gliders is too high, which I don't agree with. Maybe lower the requirements down by a few VCH points.
While on the subject of possible vehicle variations, I would sugguest introducing the DoY prototype glider or for NC, the NExT prototype glider. The requirements would be a lot less of the normal scout glider to say INT 30 VCH 62, but the disadvantage of the prototype glider would be it has half the hit points and is a lot slower than the normal glider. (Since it is a prototype glider!)
Then people who want to try gliders, can try them.
/Signed Great idea Full thumbs up ;)
Mr Doe, has anything been done to the combat barbie car, or is it still a suicide machine? :D
Ideas: longer range, does not dmg it's own passengers, and it needs to be able to fire in all directions. High dmg should compensate for the lack of precision
Heavyporker
24-10-06, 15:43
Brammers, I'm sorry, but gliders DO have to come down in requirements a bit. You do know that drugging up to fly one around is a lethal proposition, don't you?
... how we see „Vehicle-Combat“
Therefore we do not consider a notable increase in damage generation sensible – however we have decided, based your feedback, to boost the vehicle weapons by improving their handling. Aim speed, aim precision and range will be considerably improved, because they are fixed weapons.
Shouldn't damage be increased too? more powerful shot because the person firing doesn't have to withstand the recoil.. [ edited - see how you still made your point without the tantrum?]
Why would two people (in the case of a rhino or reveller) waste their time bringing a vehicle to a pvp situation when they'd be doing less damage than just one of them could alone. ESPECIALLY when its rediculously easy to avoid getting hit from vehicles as they are hard to maneuver around objects that players can hide behind.
... how we see „Vehicle-Combat“
The advantages of vehicle combat as we see them are the additional protection (for closed vehicles), the (generally) higher speed and the possibility to use the air space. The disadvantages are the reduced mobility and the bigger hit boxes.
Damage transfer to the vehicle:
When a runner uses a vehicle (independent from the seat he occupies), the damage is completely transferred to the vehicle. The system where part of the damage was transferred to the player has been removed.
Contradict eachother more? which one is true?
... how we see „Vehicle-Combat“
The advantages of vehicle combat as we see them are the additional protection (for closed vehicles), the (generally) higher speed and the possibility to use the air space. The disadvantages are the reduced mobility and the bigger hit boxes.
There's an additional disadvantage: No easy healing
When repairng a vehicle you loose its protection and are vulerable. Further the Vehicle has to be stationary since running and repairing is very impractical.
If you are in an open vehicle, then you can't heal your self either. So in an open vehicle you are more vulerable then without the vehicle.
Therefore we do not consider a notable increase in damage generation sensible – however we have decided, based your feedback, to boost the vehicle weapons by improving their handling. Aim speed, aim precision and range will be considerably improved, because they are fixed weapons.
When I remember correctly a short time after the introduction of the vehicles, they had been buffed up from the strength of normal HC-weapons to the power they have now, because they where not very useful. I don't see what has changed so they will be useful with normal HC-Damage.
Why should I choose to bring a Rhino instead of an {apu|tank|spy|pe}/ppu team (what ever will work after balancing) to an opfight?
Why should I specialise to drive an assault trike with a PE, when I have the option to use a quad and dismount to fight doing the same or more damage with normal weapons?
... concerning new vehicles
We really do not want to put you off – we simply want to keep the additional expenditures until the start of the test server low. It is however possible to create variations of existing vehicles: Suggest some new vehicle variations or comment on suggestions made by other players! As long as these suggestions are valid and can be implemented, we will try to satisfy some of your wishes.
May we get a Rhino with a fusion cannon?
@Safunte
Sorry - our first explanation was confusing. There was a damagetransfer from player to the vehicle in some cases in the past - we've deleted this case. If you have two hitboxes (i.e. on a hooverbike) you can target each one (runner or vehicle) - every object gets his own damage.
Clive tombstone
24-10-06, 18:24
Maybe bring back this guy? :D
http://www.neocronnetwork.de/gallery/extra/mechbot.jpg
come on^^
I remember seeing the old "beta Tank" somewhere as well, but sadly that was scrapped, nice knowing though there was a "force and pierce" damage tank at one time that looked like an old 20th century russian tank =P.
also I aggree with No style. very true, and brammers, veh reqs DO need to come down, drugged flight equals dead pilot, and quite often man. Your point of making an NC version that reqs 30 int would make it pointless to get the 60int one in the first place, they all should be scailed down to that area of int rqs man.
Brammers, I'm sorry, but gliders DO have to come down in requirements a bit. You do know that drugging up to fly one around is a lethal proposition, don't you?
With the upcoming AoE damage on exploding gliders, yes gliders are lethal. :p
Maybe tweeking just the Advanced Assault Glider a bit so it's flyable without drugs I agree with, but I think the others are fine.
There should be a Vehicle Glove that gives something like +15 or so VHC, while retaining a negative impact on other subskills like the other gloves do. But having said that, I think there's already a large negative impact on needing to wear a Vehicle Glove.
You obviously won't be able to wear your Power Gauntlet or Gaya Glove at the same time, which means you'll have to keep switching between the two to be able to both drive and use your spells. There's one slight advantage though which is that if you stick the glove on, jump on the vehicle, then switch to your Power Gauntlet you'll still be able to drive it around until you jump off or zone into another sector.
It'll help encourage people to use vehicles a bit more, and especially combat vehicles which is really what's lacking in the game at the moment apart from the population of course. :( The price of regular/combat vehicles is quite high and people will always stick to the Quad and Reveler which is pretty lame. I've probably complained about some of these things enough in another thread though so I won't keep repeating myself.
It was said in the other thread but vehicles really need a LOT of extra Energy resist.
Vehicle requirements are definitely a huge problem. Most non-epic vehicles are just too worthless or expensive to use in PvP, the requirements and prices both need to be decreased considerably. This would help new players that don't have much cash to enjoy them as well.
@Clive: That screenshot is fucking sexy. I almost wondered if that was Neocron a minute. lol
... how we see „Vehicle-Combat“
The advantages of vehicle combat as we see them are the additional protection (for closed vehicles), the (generally) higher speed and the possibility to use the air space. The disadvantages are the reduced mobility and the bigger hit boxes.
1 out of 9 gound vhc use that additional protection for gunners if we take different variants of vhc its less them 10% of them.
speed faktor isnt that big. anyone ever tested apu monk vs trike.
any pistol user or monk can kill you out of one of that "fast" vhc.
they can even chase you by using instant stamina boosters !
and come on, air vhc are only good for snipers to get on hills or to bomb the op underground entrance.
the fact that the driver need to agree that someone gets into a vhc dont make situation better. the time to klick and selekt a position and the driver klick ok is to long to get fast shelter in attacks.
rockets and bobs should have kickback on targets even if they dont hit direct. there need to be different versions of rockets, with small area and high dammage and with large area and lots of kickback.
and dont forget the current outposts. how many can be attacked with VHC ?
you cant even move on hills and shoot into the OP because of the hidden walls of the outposts. the granadelaunchers on VHC are useless because u cannot shoot over walls because the targeting sucks.
Situation: you want to kill an apu user hides in a building with VHC - IMPOSSIBLE
VHC dont have any advantage in combat and i think there need to be a lot more changes them just make armour and guns different.
€: No vhc glove, please. i dont wasnt anyone to use vhc without any skillpoints.
gliders are OK, the only one that needs change is the biggest glider - dont drug and drive
so, how about make passengers use guns ans spells in a fixed direction in OPEN vhc
Clive tombstone
24-10-06, 21:11
why do people still insist on keeping the Int stats out of perportion with the common tl for gliders unlike the ground vehicles that already do? What harm would that cause? Seriously, all it could do is good for the situations, more people could use vehicles (and thats a good thing).
Secondly, yeah the Veh glove is kinda ehh idea, but I still think its not so bad really. Theres already tradeskill gloves, and the way KK seems to look at it, Vhc seems like a tradeskill to them =P.
And third (ly?) I think adding AoE to the Rockets for various gliders would make an interesting attack strategem for pilots like me, making us a whole lot more usefull in assault against bases in general.
Fourth, How about a dedicated "artillary" vehicle? We have a "gernade" vehicle that works (in the idea if the pilot has suicide as his main goal). How about an artillary main battle tank that works like those artillary turrets that used to be In nc?
and Lastly, Can I ask the GMs, what you guys think about how vehicles should be used, via player classes and who and who shouldnt use them?
Eternal Pink
25-10-06, 01:08
Well i've gotta echo the "how can a hand held gun do more damage than a huge great big tank" arguement from any kind of RP sense.
The advantages to a tank should be fire power and protection ( pretty much why we use them now in real life ) and the negatives are lack of mobility, if a 4 person team scatters when they see a tank, you have to pick one or if your lucky two people to chase down and the rest get away.
In my opinion the anti-vhc weapons should be the only thing that vehicles are vunerable to for a quick kill, if you fire a armor piecing round at a modern tank, good bye tank, you fire a high explosive anti personnel round you scratch up the paint work and just annoy them.
The same should go for vhc weapons against other vhc's, a rhino should cut through another rhino in relatively few shots, which just isnt the case at the moment.
This is the thing i wrote:
Vehicles (http://www.techhaven.org/downloads/task,doc_details/gid,112)
remember all the damage written is supposed to be relative to other vehicles.
Clive tombstone
25-10-06, 23:23
Very nice comi, good ideas. Some NC versions would be nice really. The mobile genrep station seems a bit iffy though.
I still say we need a true artillary vehicle, I mean, theres siege weapons now (artillary systems) why not now?
And come on why cant the devs answer that question I asked about "THEY'RE stance" on vehicle usage?
One last question, is the next "Faction medal" reward still in the database? Wasnt it some kind of vehicle? Can we see a screenie?
True Clive the MGS was a bit of a stretch, but it was added as a APC variant... i could be implimented properly if say it had a battery that could do so many GR's but then needed repairing.
who knows it was just one of those hairbrained ideas
Clive tombstone
26-10-06, 01:44
hehe, the more damaged the MGS is the higher chance that the person greping in has a "fatal" error >=)
We need more people talking to get some higher ups to notice.
LOL, that would be justice indeed.
I just reread my own post above yours, damn my english is bad.
And i meant recharging instead of repairing, but meh each way works.
The vehicle glove debate - Currently to drive a Chaincaft you need 12 VCH. Thats a DoY Eye and 2 points in DEX.
If you give a glove with +15 VCH that means a driver can drive the Hovertec with a DoY eye, and no points in DEX.
So with these current requirments on vehicles I say no to a VCH glove.
However one possibility is to have a min VCH requirement for the glove, so it is available to the specialist pilots and drivers, but since the current CST/RES/REC/REP gloves have a -100 H-C nerf on them, flying the combat gliders would be impossible.
@ Commie - still reading your doc, it's a lot to take in.
Dribble Joy
26-10-06, 19:12
A 60 vhc req has been suggested before.
Making vhc affect vehicle performance would also possibly discourage minimal skilling.
If you give a glove with +15 VCH that means a driver can drive the Hovertec with a DoY eye, and no points in DEX.
So with these current requirments on vehicles I say no to a VCH glove.No one would do that though.. combat eyes are far more efficient for a dex weapon user, and tanks well they have dex points to spare. A monk maybe, yes a monk. Monks need more toys anyways if balancing makes them pussies. :lol:
edit: Oh the gloves would be 60dex probably..? so scratch monks off the list. So no-one with any sense would use a veh glove that way...
Dribble Joy
26-10-06, 19:25
I'd make it like.... req 20 dex, +15 vhc, -15 agl.
Or something.
Heavyporker
26-10-06, 20:24
I'm going to ignore the vehicle glove for now (though it would possibly have to require INT to put on, to shake things up and offer an alternate path from the DEX-requiring Vehicle Brain Implants and Eye. Oh, and, yes, it would HAVE to obliterate combatskills, just like the other tradeskill gloves. If this was the case, then I'd be open to the idea of leaving Gliders at their current requirements, since 62 vhc (base, to drive Rhino and below)+ 15 vhc + DoY Vec Eye= perhaps barely enough for scout glider or advanced scout glider. Someone who needs a glove to help drive/fly should be focused on simply controlling the vehicle, actually shooting something at the same time should be right out! )
Let's get back to balancing the vehicles.
- Fix the combat car, because we cannot balance it appropriately if we can't even fucking shoot something with it!
- Scout glider's going to have to come down in requirements simply because only being able to fly doesn't warrant the extreme difference from driving a war machine like a Rhino to flying a glider made of paper, spit, and used drinking straws!
- All ground combat craft simply must do more baseline damage than their hand-held equivalent. That's their whole reason for existing: to bring --*superior firepower*-- and --*sometimes armor*-- into the fight! Vehicles are already limited by their inertia, inability to cross many terrain types people on foot can go over/through/into, and by the difficulty of locking the cannon's aim onto a fast-moving target! I won't bring up realism here or suspension of disbelief here, okay? The reasons I outlined above should suffice in their own right!
- Energy Resistance on vehicle armor really should increase. After all, even back in the Ceres Wars, energy weapons were in wide usage and the war machines' armor was specifically geared to defend against this, not just bullets and rockets!
- There needs to be a fundamental change to the weapons' control for gliders, especially in regards to pilot-fired weaponry. They're nice for air-to-air, I suppose, but that's like 1% of all combat nowadays. Air-to-ground is where it's really at, and it's simply suicidal to do a serious attempt at that currently. Insta-aim or decoupling mouse-look for glider direction would help tremendously!
Phew. Oh, and I don't want to comment heavily on Comie's treatise, other than to say that I oppose the mobile GR with heart and soul. But I do agree with the need for an major artillery vehicle, other than the grenade-lobbing combat car.
Clive tombstone
26-10-06, 23:03
Should I try drawing some artillary vehicle sketches? If so what kind of style. "dome vehicle style* or NC?
Heavyporker
27-10-06, 03:38
Neocron-style, definitely. The DoYs got *all* the damn aircraft!
Clive tombstone
27-10-06, 03:44
Alrighty, Itll be my birthday present to all of you, hopefully I can produce it well enough to impress KK. Which would be nice, I guess Ill hammer it out before the end of tommorrow. BTW, what kind of "artillary piece" should the vehicle use? Solid or Energy projectile (Like the base turrets that fire those blue traily artillary blast things)
Secondly, what should the Traction be? Wheels, treds, and dont ask hover, how in crahns name how a hovering artillary piece would work, Id like to certainly know.
Finally, How many seats, closed vehicle, size. I can substitute any Of this myself, but I generally work better with some requests.
Tread, definitely. 2 open front seats, side by side, with a cannon mounted pointed at an angle forward. The cannon should be centered, slightly to the rear of the 2 front seats. I'm picturing a tank base, with a mobile artillery-type cannon slightly behind the middle of the tank body, with 2 drivers/gunners in the front (visible from chest up.) One side seat to drive, the other to gun. This can mean that you can drive it to a place and have someone fire, or you can drive it somewhere, hop out, climb in the gunner chair and shoot it yourself. The veh should be immobile while firing, but have the greatest range of all land-based vehs. I would highly recommend having it be easily turnable, but not that fast going in a straight line. Oh, and in order to hit something, there should be a buffer zone that it needs to cross, ie. the veh cannot target up close people/vehs/mobs. That means to defend it, the pilot/gunner would have to get out for their own combat. And I'd say go with a solid round, not energy, but have area damage from shock.... so that would be pierce direct and solely force in the area affect.
Brammers, Altho i agree pvp alts should not be able to throw a Glove on and drive off into the distance -
For pure Tradeskillers, they have alot of points in dex spare anyways... So the Glove isnt needed at all
Tread, definitely. 2 open front seats, side by side, with a cannon mounted pointed at an angle forward. The cannon should be centered, slightly to the rear of the 2 front seats. I'm picturing a tank base, with a mobile artillery-type cannon slightly behind the middle of the tank body, with 2 drivers/gunners in the front (visible from chest up.) One side seat to drive, the other to gun. This can mean that you can drive it to a place and have someone fire, or you can drive it somewhere, hop out, climb in the gunner chair and shoot it yourself. The veh should be immobile while firing, but have the greatest range of all land-based vehs. I would highly recommend having it be easily turnable, but not that fast going in a straight line. Oh, and in order to hit something, there should be a buffer zone that it needs to cross, ie. the veh cannot target up close people/vehs/mobs. That means to defend it, the pilot/gunner would have to get out for their own combat. And I'd say go with a solid round, not energy, but have area damage from shock.... so that would be pierce direct and solely force in the area affect.Comparing the runspeed of the average pvp character and the vehicle speed it would make them completely useless if there was a minimum range for firing the vehicle guns.
People would just hug the vehicle like they already do to avoid getting shot. And you would have no chance of getting away.
Clive tombstone
27-10-06, 16:01
(owww, Hangover). Zmok, thats kind of the point with artillary. With the german Howitzers in WW2, they had a minimum and maximum effectivness range, being Far away and point blank standing next to the barrel. Much like that, these artillary guns are similar with that weakness. Of course your best bet would be to have support. In any combat, Mobile artillary weaponry usually has some form of gaurd or is even stationed at a base with plently of defence. If an artillary piece is placed out in the open with no gaurd what so ever, and the enemy players abuse the min/max range of the art piece, then thats the pilot and gunners own damn fault. That is of course if the mobile artillary doesnt have a light secondary weapon (a mounted low cal machine gun of some kind maybe, but that would make this vehicle a bit too strong I think).
But you cant really bring realism into nc. because the engine doesnt allow the idea of vehicles having an optimal range. Its the same thing why rifles are pointless, you cant really see far and the characters runspeed is so high.
I'd love the idea in a game where you actually couldnt close the gap from maximum distance to close combat in about 15 seconds. o_O
Clive tombstone
27-10-06, 16:26
That is true. The only thing that could make artillary much easier to use would be a Firing beam of some sort, or a Targeting laser pointer or something (sorta like whats going with say Tribes 2 artillary weaponry or planet sides artillary weapon usage as well (I think theyre "alien" weapon artillary thing has a disposable laser point that works in tandem with the artillary cannon))
IF the cannon can remain out of sight and continue to fire off screen with accuracy the problem should be solved with clever gaming, but yes the super run speeds and low view distances dont help artillary much ether =P
Dribble Joy
27-10-06, 18:44
... how we see „Vehicle-Combat“
The advantages of vehicle combat as we see them are the additional protection (for closed vehicles), the (generally) higher speed and the possibility to use the air space. The disadvantages are the reduced mobility and the bigger hit boxes.
Therefore we do not consider a notable increase in damage generation sensible – however we have decided, based your feedback, to boost the vehicle weapons by improving their handling. Aim speed, aim precision and range will be considerably improved, because they are fixed weapons.
Overview:
- Damage: 90 % (equivalent to H-C Combat)
- Aim speed: 2.25 seconds (equivalent to P-C Combat)
- Aim precision: 3.00 (equivalent to APU Combat)
- Range: 650 meters (50 meters further than H-C or R-C)
This I kinda like actually.
If an open ended skill system in in place a tl 80 weapon on a vehicle should do damage more appropriate to the HC skilling of the user anyway.
... concerning new vehicles
We really do not want to put you off – we simply want to keep the additional expenditures until the start of the test server low. It is however possible to create variations of existing vehicles: Suggest some new vehicle variations or comment on suggestions made by other players! As long as these suggestions are valid and can be implemented, we will try to satisfy some of your wishes.
Well...
Regarding vehicle weapons, why not have different versions?
Like a v2.0 rhino with a str 60 gat cannon, a v2.1 with a str 80 rocket launcher and a v2.2 with a str 105 laser?
Also, why not a series of gunner imps? Like +30HC, -15 f/e/x/agl or something.
Heavyporker
27-10-06, 22:09
No to gunner imps. That's what heavy-combat implants already do.
No to gat cannons on a Rhino base. It's a low-RoF high-damage vehicle. A sabot-firing (well, considering mechanics and KK's time constraints, perhaps a single-rocket high AoE non-homing cannon so it uses the current Vehicle Rocket Ammopacks... *sigh* It just had better do obscene vehicular damage if it goes that way so we can say it's a HEAT-rocket delivery system) Rhino is fine by me.
Dribble Joy
28-10-06, 04:34
No to gunner imps. That's what heavy-combat implants already do.
Not really.
HC imps are similar to PC or RC imps (at least in theory), they are offencive imps, they possess a slot in the imp scale that should fit into the range of imps that are availiable to players in order to set their defence/offence balance.
A gunner imp would be similar to a kami/HC chip, which would extend the offence/defence balance, but with different malii form normal. Ones that better represented the advantages and disadvantages of vehicle use.
So where a HC kami chip might add +HC and +agl with a malus to energy or some other defence loss, a gunner imp would extend gunner traits (HC and wep) and weaknesses of vehicle use, namely speed (-agl) and something else that would represent dedication to vehicles.
If a proper open-ended system is created, then defence/offence balance/variation of a player's setup is not only what we need, but the room for vehicle specialisatio too. Gunning vehicles needs to be included in this. Specialisation in vehicles (gunning and driving) should be as availiable as specialising in HC on foot.
I'll add later when I'm not as drunk.
We have gone over through your suggestions and want to introduce the following variations to the game:
1. NEXT Rhino4x4 Chaincraft V.3
This is a variation of the existing Rhino4x4. The vehicle key will have a TechLevel of 102 – the weapon TL is based on it. It is armed with the „NEXT VHC RayGun Cannon“ – TL 96. Its values will be slightly better than the original tank’s – the requirements for the driver will be similar to the original.
2. NEXT Observer Prototype V.0.2
This is a variation of the glider. It is not equipped with any weapons and therefore has very low usage requirements for the pilot (23 for the pilot seat). The key will have a TL of 64.
3. DoY Combat Reveler V.2.8
This is a variation of the existing Reveler – without epic status. The key’s TechLevel is at 88. As its weapon we selected the special „DoY Gatlin Cannon“ which is balanced with a TechLevel of 84 – so far this weapon is reserved for the „DoY Improved Defence Unit“ NPCs and it deals the damage types Piercing, Energy and X-Ray. The driver seat will have requirements similar to the current combat vehicles.
These vehicles should provide a good addition to Neocron’s vehicle selection while not creating too much additional workload. We will demonstrate the implementation of the already discusses concept changes on these examples, which will follow shortly.
We have gone over through your suggestions and want to introduce the following variations to the game:
1. NEXT Rhino4x4 Chaincraft V.3
This is a variation of the existing Rhino4x4. The vehicle key will have a TechLevel of 102 – the weapon TL is based on it. It is armed with the „NEXT VHC RayGun Cannon“ – TL 96. Its values will be slightly better than the original tank’s – the requirements for the driver will be similar to the original.
. is this AOE?
and btw, awesome proposals, me like!
is this AOE?
Yes, its AOE.
ooooo, shiny new toys. :D Some nice stuff, I can't wait.
I don't suppose there's any chance of making the DoY Reveller the TG epic reward instead of a grenade is there?
Or at least making a coupe of the vehicles Tsunami FSM so they actually have something useful when you get 90 symp.
Clive tombstone
02-11-06, 20:58
Almost done with the artillary ideas (there kinda comming along slow, since making a Artillary vehicle with an exposed cockpit seems kinda silly) But I got some good cannon and track designs comming along as well (over all, Im really bussy with my coding and scripting classes, midterms are a huge tax on my work schedual, not to mention my digital mapping class).
I like the idea of the other NC glider idea, makes things really nice like that. Also the AoE tank would add some definate spice to a situation, making base sieges much more applicable.
PS- I Honestly hope I can make a good concept piece for this artillary bit, and If it turns out right, ill try doing some more later on as well (getting the "NC armored vehicle" style down right now is a little strange since the only reference I have is the old rhino right now, but itll get going, my art works improved a bit since I placed something last time on the character drawing thread
> NEXT Rhino4x4 Chaincraft V.3
if you're giving the rhino an aoe weapon wouldn't it make more sense for it to fire rockets? i know this is a futuristic game but i still think rockets would be nicer ;>
> NEXT Observer Prototype V.0.2
you say it has 23 vhc(?) for the pilot seat, does that mean you intend on giving it passenger seats? if not, how about giving the TL70 scout glider a passenger seat so it's not just replaced by this..
> DoY Combat Reveler V.2.8
make it the TG epic reward and let it have it's epic status, otherwise i doubt it will be used all that much
Yes, its AOE. Niiiiceee.
Will the vehicle be immune to it's own AOE?
Heavyporker
03-11-06, 00:53
Oh.... my.... Crahn!!!
Awesome!
I've got to agree with Kierz, too... if there's a very low level glider for someone to fly about in, then the DoY Scout Glider will need to have a passenger seat to maintain its relative usefulness.
Raygun Turret on a Rhino... so cool! But I must point out that in the Ceres War, didn't Neocron field FUSION-CANNON turrets on Rhinos? I'm just asking.
And, Kierz... NO! There shouldn't be another Epic vehicle. That's NExT's speciality and you know it.
Apocalypsox
03-11-06, 01:59
speaking on relative RP terms here Porker...shouldnt NEXT in theory have a flying epic vehicle? I mean...theyve developed a Reveller...but next has nothing in the air...and air supiority is a major thing to have in a war... Just sayin next epic should be a prototype glider...maybe more like a closed jet compared to the DoY gliders.
Raygun Turret on a Rhino... so cool! But I must point out that in the Ceres War, didn't Neocron field FUSION-CANNON turrets on Rhinos? I'm just asking.
And, Kierz... NO! There shouldn't be another Epic vehicle. That's NExT's speciality and you know it.sound's a little pro-city biased =] and there should be a lot more epic vehicles imo, not cause i'm a carebear and can't afford to replace my vhcs when teh evul pkers blow them up (i probably could afford it, but actually i don't really use vhcs ever epics or non-epics :P), but most people seem to be cause apart from rhinos and doy bombers i rarely ever see anything but quads and revelers..
and thinking about it, rhino with a fusion cannon is for the win and suits sooo much more than rgc, and cooler than just rockets i guess ;p
Raygun Turret on a Rhino... so cool! But I must point out that in the Ceres War, didn't Neocron field FUSION-CANNON turrets on Rhinos? I'm just asking.
And, Kierz... NO! There shouldn't be another Epic vehicle. That's NExT's speciality and you know it.sound's a little pro-city biased =] and there should be a lot more epic vehicles imo, not cause i'm a carebear and can't afford to replace my vhcs when teh evul pkers blow them up (i probably could afford it, but actually i don't really use vhcs ever epics or non-epics :P), but most people seem to be cause apart from rhinos and doy bombers i rarely ever see anything but quads and revelers..
and thinking about it, rhino with a fusion cannon is for the win and suits sooo much more than rgc, and cooler than just rockets i guess ;p (i'll admit i was kinda thinking how much rapeage a rocket aoe rhino would do to the little gay cloak monkies - rockets = piercing/force usually)
Apocalypsox
03-11-06, 03:38
Zomg double piosterz!!
Dribble Joy
03-11-06, 04:44
Doesn't sound unreasonable that there would be an epic vehicle on each side.
I'd like them to bring in the hover tanks from the ceres war.
meh.. not sure how that happened sorry =]
also would the DoY Gatlin Cannon be the blipblip one from the doy bots? thats pretty cool if it is
i guess we'll be getting the same skins as the reveler/rhino/gliders for these? or are we gonna get a nice lil treat from the art dep.. would be nice to be able to see a difference in the new content, otherwise it won't really look like new content to a lot of ppl..
Clive tombstone
03-11-06, 05:28
new models would be a given id hope (Next doesnt directly work for the dome I would hope =P). Im guessing the observer could be a closed single man vehicle (seems like the NCPD style of things is boxed out armor and ceiled defence), then again i could be wrong.
Also, with the state of affairs, would an AOE tank take the place of an artillary piece or not? (Im still working on it, midterm week is killing me right now).
To KK:
driving these rhino's isnt very rewarding or interesting for the player that has to sacrifice alot to be able to be a proper driver.
Is there any chance of a smaller/1 man varient of the Rhino, OR adding in a smaller (dont read crappy TL 20 bb pistol) mounted weapon for the driver? so that the vehicle isnt totally defenseless when there is no gunner.
All these vehicle variations (which is why they're called variations) use existing models. Next probably copied the Dome's designs ;)
Also, these are all the variations that will be included in the balancing project. While an artillery tank won't make it now, it's under consideration for a later patch. So don't drop the ball on your midterms, there's plenty of time.
Perhaps a new skin could be made for the Rhino V3 just to give it a visual difference?
It'll be a tasty suprise when you find out which Rhino is trundling towards you :D
Good to see the introduction of some new vehicles and its about time the Dome got some land vehicles ;)
You know....BD could use a new epic item ;)
You know....BD could use a new epic item ;)
They had a new epic item ages ago, that massive DoY apartment. However I say TG needs a new epic item.
Heavyporker
03-11-06, 20:50
TG needs to get an Epic Grenade Launcher.
But these Freedom Strikes should stay on offer, perhaps a separate mini-quest to get a pile or something.
But I digress.
Upgraded Vehicle skins would be *so* awesome. I mean, aside from aesthetics, headlights (and flashlights) illuminate shit in the wastelands... And I WANT MY FIRST PERSON VIEW INSIDE/ATOP VEHICLES, DAMMIT!
Anyways, about that vehicle-cannon AoE area, is it the same as a handheld cannon, smaller, or larger? That'd be useful information to know, especially if one has to consider damage and rate of fire. I mean, naturally, just as with greater damage, one would expect a greater radius of effect from vehicular AoE.
That reminds me... will the Bomber weapons in the Hoverbomber and Adv. Assault Glider get more control over the bomb arcs, or is it still linked to the vehicle's position?
They had a new epic item ages ago, that massive DoY apartment. However I say TG needs a new epic item. I'd gladly swap it for the TH cpu :D
I was going to say that TG needed a new item too, but I remembered that KK said that they would make grenades more useful. I'm waiting for an answer in the other thread
KK said that they would make grenades more useful.hm add that to the fact they're epics which have a +15% could freedom strikes ever be viable lol?
Heavyporker
04-11-06, 14:48
Freedom Strikes, in limited situations, are quite nice to have. I'd just prefer that they have wider usage, especially in PvP.
Either more damage, or a greater variety of damage types, or multiple 'uses' per grenade, would go a long way towards making Freedom Strikes, and grenades in general, more useful.
Jake Cutter
05-11-06, 02:36
... It is however possible to create variations of existing vehicles: Suggest some new vehicle variations or comment on suggestions made by other players! As long as these suggestions are valid and can be implemented, we will try to satisfy some of your wishes.
Two-seat hovertec. regular, and combat version :) With the combat version the pilot still controls weapons fire. Passenger is just a passenger.
Regards,
Jake Cutter
Clive tombstone
05-11-06, 08:23
Well feck, I aint happy with it, but the original had a "coffee" incident :mad: . Anyways, heres one that I cooked up after I finished my midterms today (kinda all done from memory) Ill have a "cleaner" version later, and at least 2-3 other prototype ideas, Im just honestly doing this for practice, Id like to get some responses from maybe the dev guys though, just to see how far I am from indy standards, but then again I feel Im getting ahead of myself.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b17/Ashufly/Craptank.png
I was trying to go for a "Rhino" look, but then again maybe I should stray outa that area for the next model. Btw Im not sure but making the artillary vehicle "open seat" seems kinda silly. Every time I draw it It seems like the engineer who designed it must be high (Why would you want a heavy piece of military machinery to leave your operators so vulnerable?
In other news... I like the new freedom strike idea, but then again, lets not turn this precious vehicle thread into a weapons thread please? :angel:
Heavyporker
05-11-06, 16:32
*Cough* spell-check your notations...
But Open-Seat driver seat *besides* the main cannon does sound smart. Especially if you have that computer screen/keyboard combo from the wheeler car for the driver's seat.
Heavy machinery doesn't normally armor the driver's seat: the expense is reserved for these that are expected to face direct enemy action.
That said, your drawing's not half-bad. I'd expect far wider treads for such a massive cannon because the kickback could be atrocious, especially for matter-projectile rounds.
Clive tombstone
05-11-06, 17:57
Sounds good, Ill apply this into the next design then. Also when you say driver seat side, do you mean like have say the driver seat parralel to the gunner seat, and not centered in the vehicle? Also which seat do you mean also that unarmored seat should be the drivers as well, or the gunners?
Also from all the artillary vehicles Ive looked at (mobile artillary), I havnt ever seen Exposed cockpits.
PS- ALso when you mean wider treads you mean like by looking at the front of the vehicle, the treads should be thicker? or by looking at the side they should be longer?
PPS-my handwriting is THE worst, Ill spellcheck next time though =P
Heavyporker
05-11-06, 18:21
Yeah, I mean parallel to the cannon, not centered under it... Change things up, see?
And on mobile artillery, well.. They may be enclosed, but probably not under a foot of steel like a tank. They're more like trucks, really, aren't they?
Wider means wider. Not longer, not thicker. :p
Clive tombstone
05-11-06, 18:30
Well, kinda, the artillary tanks I had in mind was this kind when I ment artillery.
http://dwp.bigplanet.com/rellitechnology/nss-folder/pictures/M7.105mm.Priest.jpg
http://dwp.bigplanet.com/rellitechnology/nss-folder/pictures/M12.155mm.jpg
http://dwp.bigplanet.com/rellitechnology/nss-folder/pictures/M109.jpg
Woo, lotta picture, anyways the other artillery vehicles that resemble trucks would probably be something like this
http://www.defense-update.com/images/caesar.jpg
Apocalypsox
05-11-06, 18:57
Artillery looks good. Would be awsome to see something like that roll over a hill, then see a giant green neutron-like ball flying towards your head. Needs AoE though, and no Raygun bullet model...unless its been re-colord to the plasma cannon bullet color...Maybe a deeper more Neon green... God you guys are making me think about my fucking combat mechs again
Clive tombstone
05-11-06, 19:22
I just got an Idea, If the devs are reading this, do you think they could post a little of there concept art here on the forum? I mean some of the stuff already release? Id like to practice working in a style of some kind, pluss I dont think ive ever seen any concept art from this game asside from the "Intro" movie
Nice designs. With regards to the force of the weapon, perhaps lowering a foot type anchor (similar to those used on fire engines and cranes) from the back before the firing sequence can be started. This of course is a drawback but that would be the trade-in you have for using such a powerful weapon.
Are there any plans from KK to introduce storage capicty on vehicles? Even if it's just on the larger ones like Rhinos, APC's etc...
It doesn't really have to be a compartment, it could just give a greater carryload to the gunner and/or driver. This would then give the destruction of vehicles a purpose other than being a 12 year old prick thats just doing it to cause someone grief. Once the vehicle has been destroyed it drops a storage compartment that can be hacked and it can drop anything from your inv.
Of course, normal vehicle/PvP rules would apply. If they're LE'd then they can't be attacked by players and don't drop a compartment (or do but its empty). If an E'd runner share's a Rhino for example with a unLE'd friend then the compartment item drop comes into affect for both runners.
Clive tombstone
06-11-06, 01:11
Sounds good! its an interesting concept that seems to work with what we understand as the engines standards. I like it. Anouther feature I Think would be good, would be damage when a vehicle is destroyed? I mean when a Rhino goes up in flames, its a pretty flashy explosion, but pretty comical when you see a guy just walk out of the explosion like he just got out of a liquor store =P. AoE explosions would be good I think.
And actually there WERE supposed to be "Bracing feet" but I relized that that maybe not be in the engines capabilities, but maybe itll be good for the cosmetic feel if something like that ever came into existance in NC)
And anouther note, come on, at least can i get a response on the concept art work (I mean the Neocron concept art work, not mine)? Like a yes or no, rather than a unsettling silence? (Come on, snowcrash, anybody?)
Anouther feature I Think would be good, would be damage when a vehicle is destroyed? I mean when a Rhino goes up in flames, its a pretty flashy explosion, but pretty comical when you see a guy just walk out of the explosion like he just got out of a liquor store =P. AoE explosions would be good I think.
If a vehicle is completely destroyed, an explosion damaging everything around the vehicle (including its passengers) is triggered. The force of the explosion depends on the vehicle’s weight.
Is that what you mean?
Clive tombstone
06-11-06, 01:58
Ahh I missed that part
Edit-Sweeeet
As for the open cockpit, it was to enforce the vulnerability of artillery, since it was supposed to have such a long range (the satellite imaging system or whatnot would have to give a secondary screen for assault...but if no long range, no open turret.) The best heavy artillery tanks in WWII had armor for their people, but the commanders who used their tanks most effectively actually stood out of the top of the hatch to get a battleground view, which is where the idea came from. Sounds silly, but it was damned effective!
Aha! I got it! The way to figure out how to accomplish long range artillery is to have the artillery be guided in by a spydrone with incredible range, say half the zone... (and only a droner could fire the heavy artillery, giving droners an actual veh/weapon!) The drone would be the ammo for the artillery, and they get blown up in the attack, so once the drones are used up, no more shots. And of course the shot must be AOE.
And I love the look of the artillery so far. Very NC-esque. I understand the idea of the wider treads, and it makes sense, but I'd say nix it and leave them the size they are for playable purposes.
Clive tombstone
06-11-06, 05:23
Hmm, Interesting, If we do a droner tank thouhg, I think we'll need a Psi tank eventually cept with more "psi-ness" (=P
http://firingsquad.com/games/redalert2firstlook/images/22.jpg
Crahn be praised! :rolleyes:
Anyways, we'll just have to figuer some more stuff for the vehicles. I got a rework of the NC observer glider, but then again It still needs some more work. Like I said before, Id like to see some concept work for the vehicles (I mean the actual vehicles from NC (by the actual artists), If KK would allow it (which i would like to hear if thats possible, hell Id buy an art book if youd guys would seel it ^_^).
PS-This is how I should guess vehicle concepts should look, and Ill strive to draw like them in the future (my career will depend on it possibly I would think eventually)
I couldn't imagine a long range artilery tank being useful in pvp :\
Clive tombstone
06-11-06, 09:27
Well the implications of artillary in war are indeed an interesting prospect, a number of prerequisists must first be met for artillary/Siege weaponry to be deemed effective for use.
1-Your target must be un aware of your current possition, and or occupied with anouther target/objective
2-Your target must have some conciderable distance between you and it as well.
Optional (and perferable)-
3-Your target is best kept un aware of your presence until the "opertune" moment arives (or more specifically, when the shell vaporizes them)
4-Artillary should be used Offencively from a support standpoint, as any support piece, wether it be a medic, all the way to a transport ship, the primary human factor is absolutly necisary (this means, without a primary force, a support unit can only work at minimal effectiveness, tell me this ISNT true for PPU's)
So Ideal standpoints are as follows for a PVP situation: your target is un aware that you intend to kill them with a fixed artillary piece, they are also unaware for your current firing possition, and finally your target his some other opposition rather than yourself to tend with if they find the need to persue you.
An artillary piece is not ment to fight on its own, know that, so when your idea of using a piece as a "primary" PvP item, your doomed to failure.
PS-please add anything I may have forgotten please
It would have to be 1 hit kills and have a large blast radius or shoot fast
Dribble Joy
06-11-06, 14:53
Just make it like the raygun rhino variant but make it a beam weapon. So it just falls from the sky.
Targeting will be an issue, at least from a mechanics/programming perspective. I'd like it to be some means through which a scout drone would be of use.
Just make it like the raygun rhino variant but make it a beam weapon. So it just falls from the sky.
Targeting will be an issue, at least from a mechanics/programming perspective. I'd like it to be some means through which a scout drone would be of use.:o
Laser sight on the scout drone to 'paint the target'??? I like that! Make it so a droner has to be in the artillery vehicle also, and there is an unlimited supply of scout drones in it for this purpose.
Dribble Joy
06-11-06, 15:41
Make the unlimited ones in the tank of medium quality or TL, if you want true zone wide range, bring your own ;).
Bozz-Von Mel
06-11-06, 16:50
Interesting topic. For artillery to work with this game would require a massive script added to the engine. A group of guys did that in a mod for Operation Flashpoint. www.thechainofcommand.com. Artillery by itself is rather dumb and requires an observer to give a target location and a fire direction center. Then the math is done by a fire direction center and data sent to the guns for adjustment. The in-game mini map would have to be modified so that you could select a location. The other solution with the drones is a good idea too. Drones with some sort of laser designator capability, guided rounds, etc. Don't know if the game world is actually high enough (altitude) to allow for realistic trajectory.
My RL job just happens to be an artillery observer which makes this topic somewhat interesting to me. However, for KK to put something like this in game requires a massive ammount of work.
Dribble Joy
06-11-06, 20:08
Don't know if the game world is actually high enough (altitude) to allow for realistic trajectory.
Which is why I suggested the beam weapon system, it could represent a very high projectile arc. The firer could be the drone controller, and essentially it would give the scout drone a weapon.
Clive tombstone
06-11-06, 20:29
Honestly I think a "drone tank" or "Drone Carrier" would be a more appropriate vehicle. Okay hows this, Basically this vehicle can deploy "super heavy" drones, not like standard drones. In other words something like a driver goes about the battle field, and the gunner (s) are droners who can deploy special drones while in the vehicle. This drones being much more resilliant and powerful than normal drones, are a dynamic weapon. There weakness however, is the drone carrier itself, being that if it were to be destroyed, the drones themselves would cease function. No doupt that these drones would be powerfull that they would require an operator(s) of high standing skills, that and also the Drones (ammo) would cost a pretty penny as well. It would also be interesting if this was a hover type vehicle I would think.
That being said, I dont think an artillary piece should rely on Drone skill in order to fire (I mean in order to fire it, not in order to find its targets), its not very logical.
Dribble Joy
06-11-06, 20:49
Indeed, though we need some mechanism by which the artillery, hidden from the target, is to see anything to fire on. Unless we simply make it very long range and use LoS, which is a bit naff.
That being said, I dont think an artillary piece should rely on Drone skill in order to fire (I mean in order to fire it, not in order to find its targets), its not very logical.It needs a targeting mechanism that doesn't rely on LoS though... I guess you could set a range and fire blind.. maybe rely on teammembers for accuracy reports.
The only idea I could come up with so far as a solution to the range problem other than the drone concept would be 8| to use the old glider (with the higher reqs) as a laser tager for the tank... but that just sounds like it would stink as it'd be hard to 1. aim the glider laser accurately in the free fall 2. connect the glider sight to the tank's gunner 3. program how the glider and tank team up (possibly something similar to how you ask to be a passenger?)
Much prefer the droner concept. And I would say keep the droner as the gunner since he's painting the target. And droners and artillery use the same basic concept anyways..... hide and don't get killed :D
Clive tombstone
07-11-06, 23:37
My biggest beef with the whole drone target painter idea though is that, it feels like the artillary tank will just become the "drone carrier" Idea I was mentioning before, in the respects that you dont actually fire the artillary, but a little drone that does all the work for you, seems kinda cheap really, and not really artillary
Heavy artillery, drone carrier, I see them as kinda the same thing, but it's a fine line :)
Well, you can set the droner as the sight painter (have to use a special drone) and another char as the gunner, but really, what's the gunner gonna do? Just hit the button when the droner says "now?" I understand what you're saying, but who's gonna subject themselves to being the gunner in that case? It'd be no fun. (Or did you have another idea in mind?)
Now, if we can get the gunner to also pilot it, and make the veh fairly slow compared to other vehs, but not turtle slow, that would change things up. The gunner would run around the wastelands in random patterns while the droner kept telling him when to fire. That way, the vehicle would be harder to find, thus having bombardments coming from who knows where, and when they know where, it may have moved. Maybe the beam could have a moderate arc out of the sky so the people getting hit can see from what general direction, but not see the vehicle itself (which would give them some hope of finding the artillery.)
Ooh, and an idea... the drone that is used for ammo could stay put, just damaged beyond repair (could be salvaged for common drone parts or researched) and the opposition could pick it up, hack it, and then have the location of the artillery at the time of firing (not current, mind you, as that would be overbalanced and just plain dumb as the thing is now out of contact with the artillery and isn't functioning properly.)
And another thing, the drones would have to be fast.... very fast, to cover the distance from the artillery to the op (or wherever) to make the artillery viable.
And Clive, I love the latest drawing you posted. It would work, but only if that were to fire something other than drones. Otherwise, it'd be a giant gamma/x-ray tank with gamma/x-ray cannons, but no gamma/x-ray firing capabilities lol.
Heavyporker
08-11-06, 01:36
I heavily dislike the 'drone carrier' artillery idea.
Just have it fire in arcs, like a functional grenade launcher. The physics is there, with practice the gunner would be able to aim accurately.
What is so frigging hard about this concept?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????
Clive tombstone
08-11-06, 01:37
Exactly what Im talking about my friend =), I think idealy what they mean with the drones though, is that they are used in tandem with the tank itself (used for target painting) while the gunner manually fires at the painted targets, think Tribes 2 targeting lasers like below, minus the jackassery
http://www.planettribes.com/tribes2/images/w00t030601.jpg
thanks for the compliment about the tank btw
Bozz-Von Mel
08-11-06, 12:07
I heavily dislike the 'drone carrier' artillery idea.
Just have it fire in arcs, like a functional grenade launcher. The physics is there, with practice the gunner would be able to aim accurately.
What is so frigging hard about this concept?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????
Still requires line of sight. Now matter how much you practice, you will not hit something you cannot see.
As announced, here are the details of the three new vehicles – the concept changes that were discussed have been implemented for all vehicles. Therefore the initial examples greatly differ from the following (aim speed, aim precision, range) – as these values have been balanced with the TechLevel of the vehicle keys, you can expect similar behavior from the other vehicles.
The values for condition (Healthpoints) and the armor have been balanced by a group classification – the following groups have been created:
- Tank: Very good condition, very good armor (i.e. Rhino, DoY Hoverbomber)
- Chaincraft: Good condition, good armor (i.e. HH4x4 Chaincraft)
- Hover: Medium condition, good armor
- Scorpion: Medium condition, good armor
- Glider: Low condition, good armor (i.e. Scout, Advanced Scout)
- Usual: Low condition, medium armor (i.e. Speedbike, Wheeler, Quad)
Example #5: NEXT Rhino4x4 Chaincraft V.3 – KeyTL 102
Vehicle Setup (Group: Tank):
Condition: 16000 HealthPoints
Weight: 9600 Kg
Armor:
100 % Force
96 % Piercing
96 % Fire
92 % Energy
92 % X-Ray
100 % Poison (Damage is ignored)
Seat #1: Driver (INT 30, VHC 62)
Seat #2: Gunner (STR 96, H-C 113, T-C 81)
Seat #3: Passenger
Seat #4: Passenger
Weaponry:
Weapon: NEXT VHC RayGun Cannon
Category: Heavy Combat, HighTech
TechLevel: 96
Mode: Single Shot
Aim speed: 1.43 Seconds (64 %)
Aim precision: 1.86 Reticule start size (62 %)
Clip: 50 Shots
Real firing frequency: 37.50 / Minute
Range: 618.75 Meter
Ammo: NEXT VHC Raygun Cannon Ammo, 50 Units, 1860 Gramm
Damage per shot: 404.4978 (Energy, X-Ray)
Damage per minute: ca. 14798
Example #6: DoY HH4x4 Combat Chaincraft – KeyTL 88
Vehicle Setup (Group: Chaincraft):
Condition: 11950 HealthPoints
Weight: 2800 Kg
Armor:
96 % Force
96 % Piercing
90 % Fire
92 % Energy
92 % X-Ray
100 % Poison (Damage is ignored)
Seat #1: Driver (INT 18, VHC 45)
Seat #2: Gunner (STR 84, H-C 107)
Seat #3: Passenger
Weaponry:
Weapon: DoY VHC Improved Gatlin Cannon
Category: Heavy Combat, LowTech
TechLevel: 84
Mode: Burst (4)
Aim speed: 1.57 Seconds (70 %)
Aim precision: 2.04 Reticule start size (68 %)
Clip: 100 Shots
Real firing frequency: 315.79 / Minute
Range: 595.31 Meter
Ammo: NEXT VHC Improved Gatlin Cannon Ammo, 100 Units, 1980 Gramm
Damage per shot: 39.8140 (Piercing, Energy, X-Ray)
Damage per minute: ca. 11375
Example #7: NEXT Observer Prototype V.0.2 – KeyTL 64
Vehicle Setup (Group: Glider):
Condition: 5550 HealthPoints
Weight: 520 Kg
Armor:
90 % Force
92 % Piercing
96 % Fire
94 % Energy
94 % X-Ray
100 % Poison (Damage is ignored)
Seat #1: Pilot (INT 23, VHC 53)
Seat #2: Passenger
We hope you like these suggestions :D
commerzgandalf
08-11-06, 15:11
Example #5: NEXT Rhino4x4 Chaincraft V.3 – KeyTL 102
Vehicle Setup (Group: Tank):
Condition: 16000 HealthPoints
Weight: 9600 Kg
Armor:
100 % Force
96 % Piercing
96 % Fire
92 % Energy
92 % X-Ray
100 % Poison (Damage is ignored)
Seat #1: Driver (INT 30, VHC 62)
-------------------------------------------
Seat #2: Gunner (STR 96, H-C 113, T-C 81)
-------------------------------------------
Seat #3: Passenger
Seat #4: Passenger
So PE cant gun rhino anymore ?
Example #6: DoY HH4x4 Combat Chaincraft – KeyTL 88
Vehicle Setup (Group: Chaincraft):
Seat #1: Driver (INT 44, VHC 73)
Seat #2: Gunner (STR 84, H-C 107)
Seat #3: Passenger
Why is the driver requirements for the DoY HH4x4 Combat Chaincraft set at INT 44, VHC 73? Thats very high for a Chaincraft group vehicle, or are vehicles like the Reveler or ER HH4x4 Chaincraft V1 going to have higher requirements?
Well to be perfectly honest Mr Doe, you have made the group classifacation to complicated, youve basically just catorgerised the vehicles on their names.
e.g
Hover type
Scorpian type
theres only 2 types of these vehicles, and all they really are is the same vehicle but with a main weapon strapped on.
Make the catagories simpler.
secondly
Tank V2
Vehicle Setup:
Units: 12000 HealthPoints
Weight: 9600 Kg
Armor: 90 % Force
70 % Piercing
95 % Fire
65 % Energy
65 % X-Ray
100 % Poison
Weaponry:
Weapon: NEXT VHC Laser Cannon
Category: Heavy Combat, HighTech
TechLevel: 90
Modus: Single Shot
Aim speed: 3.44 Seconds (76 %)
Aim precision: 3.43 Reticule start size (69 %)
Clip: 48 Shots
Real Firing Frequency: 32.60 / Minute
Range: 548.40 Meter
Ammo: NEXT VHC Laser Cannon Powercell, 48 Units, 1040 Gramm
Damage per shot: 409.3280 (Energy)
Damage per minute: ca. 13335
Vs
Tank V3
Vehicle Setup (Group: Tank):
Condition: 16000 HealthPoints
Weight: 9600 Kg
Armor:
100 % Force
96 % Piercing
96 % Fire
92 % Energy
92 % X-Ray
100 % Poison (Damage is ignored)
Seat #1: Driver (INT 30, VHC 62)
Seat #2: Gunner (STR 96, H-C 113, T-C 81)
Seat #3: Passenger
Seat #4: Passenger
Weaponry:
Weapon: NEXT VHC RayGun Cannon
Category: Heavy Combat, HighTech
TechLevel: 96
Mode: Single Shot
Aim speed: 1.43 Seconds (64 %)
Aim precision: 1.86 Reticule start size (62 %)
Clip: 50 Shots
Real firing frequency: 37.50 / Minute
Range: 618.75 Meter
Ammo: NEXT VHC Raygun Cannon Ammo, 50 Units, 1860 Gramm
Damage per shot: 404.4978 (Energy, X-Ray)
Damage per minute: ca. 14798
one word for you
Consistancy.
V3 is a tank VARIENT, not a new vehicle, what this means is that its the same armor same resistances same hps... different weapon load out.
and speaking of resistances, why are the vehicles weakest to energy? most of them are earthed to buggery so a lightning strike shouldnt do anything to it.
the vehicles should we weak to force and pierce (for normal weapon types) and if you want to be spangly about it make an invisible resist called "VHC" and have anti vehicle weapons deal this type of damage, then you can decide how much damage each type takes
e.g.
Tank catagory takes 40% VHC damage
Scorp catagory takes 60% VHC damage...
etc.
So PE cant gun rhino anymore ?i thought that when i read it first, but it's the new RGC (please make it fusion=[) rhino not the normal one :p
also vehicles should be weaker to force than nrg/xrr
Rhino V.3:
There is no decision against the PE to use that weapon - it will become harder to reach that requirements. Nothing more!
DoY HH4x4 Combat Chaincraft:
Thank you for mentioning that fault - this was to heavy for the driver seat. New requirements are INT 18, VHC 45 (Origin version has INT 15, VHC 37).
also with reguards to stat requirements for driving/gunning.
i think you should drop the main stat requirement.
e.g.
Seat #1: Driver (INT 18, VHC 45)<