PDA

View Full Version : Vehicles & requirements



Riddle
15-09-12, 11:27
I would like to throw out the idea to remove the driving profession altogether, as driving should be considered a secondary skill and should be treated as such.

No full combat char can afford points in VHC if they are going to be viable, at best the 15 for a quad maybe.

This leaves most high end flying & combat vehicles out of reach. Very few people dedicate the high level of points to make use of them, so unfortunately we don't see many DOY bombers flying around!

I would suggest that VHC should no longer be required, that vehicles instead be linked to your level. Early levels you can use quad, moving on to bikes, hovertecs then mid range 25-45 you gain use of combat vehicles. One near cap 50+ you get to use all flying and high end combat rhino etc.

If your taking a combat vehicle then the gunner will still require the combat skill necessary to shoot it, don't want to unbalance combat! Just allow people to make more use of them.

Also give a boost as a levelling reward to new chars, get to 10 you use a bike, get to 50 and fly!


Op wars involve people running around in groups as most have little to no VHC. They should be able to rock up on bikes, transports, gliders! It would make the sky's more accessible and the VHC much more used.

Plus create some business for brammers :p

nabbl
15-09-12, 11:35
I would roger that.

Plus: Vehicles should be able to take more player dmg. A tank is a tank.

Nose
15-09-12, 11:45
jeah! make base INT lvl the requirement for aircrafts and STR the req for tanks, for example!

I'd love that. would revive the whole vehicle crafting business, too...

Brammers
17-09-12, 18:21
Making vehicles drivable according to your character level - I like the idea.

Now on the subject of crafting/selling vehicles, it takes a lot of player resources to build them.

To be able to sell all vehicles (Except Jones and Epic ones) I need a constructor, researcher and four barterers. Why 4? Well NEXT sells most of the non-researchable vehicles, but then you need 3 more in 3 different factions to get the rest. (Take a look at http://www.techhaven.org/db/keys/vehicles ) I suggest making all vehicles researchable again like they was in Neocron 1.

Also the V3 Rhino is at a price over 500k - that's just way too much for anyone to consider purchasing.

William Antrim
17-09-12, 19:55
Completely agree with ALL points.

Vehicle damage should also be looked at, as in make it more efficient but make the ammo seriously high to recycle. Make the recycling tradeskill more useful. That would mean high level tradeskillers would split their Dex between recycle and rep so as to be able to run their vehicles. However there should be some system in place for the non-tradeskillers also to use vehicles. Like cheaper repairs at the warp garage for example.

The repairer should be able to spec his repair points into his repair to replace the points he would lose in his high tech combat or Pistol/rifle combat etc but the damage output and the survivability he gets from his vehicle should replace this as a viable levelling alternative.

I would like to see vehicle combat levelling in anything thats not a cave tbh. That would rock. I'd actually secretly love to driving around on my hovertec and have some arsehole trying to bomb me in a DOY Glider!

People should be able to spec low amounts of repair and still get some form of benefit too - like Tanks and Pe's who can afford to spend maybe 50-75 repair perhaps (at detriment to their other skills in dex ofc) then they would be able to enjoy the advanced firepower of their vehicle compared with the damage output of their own main weapon.

essentially i would like to see vehicular combat become the mainstay of levelling tradeskillers - even the hacknet toons perhaps could level in this way when not in hacknet.

CMaster
19-09-12, 08:59
Not convinced by the idea of scrapping vehicle entirely. I like the idea that driving is a skill that can be offered, not just something along the lines of WoW where every high level character has a set of mounts. However, I'd certainly accept that requirements could afford to come down a fair bit. Also, there's probably some space to make vehicles a bit more available to other classes - at the moment, a dedicated tank is the solution to drive almost everything - perhaps a few more armed vehicles using RC (or going with the idea of being suitable for HN characters and making some sense, maybe TC should become the standard (and only) req for vehicle weapons, with str/hc being retained just for those "handheld" vehicle weapons, eg Reveller, APC.

Beyond that vehicle damage needs to be buffed considerably. I'd suggest starting with doubling it, and then seeing how it goes from there, expecting to have to raise it further, but perhaps by different amounts for different vehicles. One of the nice things here, is that there is pretty much no worry of vehicles being overpowered, at least for PvP (there could be some PvE issues). People fighting on foot have such an advantage over vehicles in so many ways, that a big damage bonus is necesary to give vehicles any PvP purpose (vehicles may also need a aiming time boost to have any PvP use, will have to investigate)

Also, make all vehicle keys salvageable again. Nobody is going to risk vehicles in combat with the current costs (on a non-horribly inflated server), at least not as more than a novelty. Equally, might be worth making the reveller more expensive to repair, so it's not such a default anti-vehicle-vehicle.

Dribble Joy
19-09-12, 09:40
Remove VHC req. Tie vehicle speed, handling and traction to VHC.

Remove HC req for vehicle weapons, base weapon performance off primarily WEP, but also all the main combat skills, PC, RC, HC, MC, RCL, etc.

nEo-1664
19-09-12, 11:02
I wouldn't mind seeing less player damage being taken when using the gun on the back of a Reveler or V1, as when gunning, you are behind a guard that the barrel sticks out through. Yet damage is taken directly to the player as if nothing in front protecting.

Dribble Joy
19-09-12, 11:29
Indeed, +50 resists or something, like a zone bonus.

nEo-1664
19-09-12, 11:32
Indeed, +50 resists or something, like a zone bonus.

That would work without being OTT I would think :)

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 14:20
One thing more: All VHCs except the "Reveller" (epic) should be destructible. The Reveller should have a faction requirement.
--> we will see more different vhc-types again.

nEo-1664
19-09-12, 14:22
One thing more: All VHCs except the "Reveller" (epic) should be destructible. The Reveller should have a faction requirement.

Do you mean a faction requirement to drive it?

Also, the Reveller is the only vehicle that is indestructible afaik. It looses HP, but does not blow-up.

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 14:35
Yes... only a NEXT-member (not my prefered faction) should be able to drive it. We have these kind of reqirements on other faction items too (CA-Armor, CM-Chip, ...). Other factions can use the 4x4 chaincraft. Also the Jones-Quad doesn't blow up. Thats why we see so few other vhc-types used.

Dropout
19-09-12, 14:35
There shouldnt be a faction requirement on the Reveler.. Thats a horrible Idea IMO.
Actually, all faction requirements should be removed IMO.

And Neo; The Quad (from the Driver-Jones mission) is indestructible aswell.
Which I dont mind btw - It IS from a Jones mission, so you shouldnt be able to Loose it - just like all the other Jones rewards.

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 14:44
Without an explanation your thesis lacks the force to convince other people. Why ist that idea horrible?

We need things that help indentifying with a faction, because NC is also a RPG. The Reveller is certainly not overpowered and has the same specs as the 4x4-Chaincraft. But the worst thing is, that indestructible Vehicles make all other Vehicles nearly obsolete regarding transportation. You can see it every day on the server.

Dropout
19-09-12, 14:48
Without an explanation your thesis lacks the force to convince other people. Why ist that idea horrible?

We need things that help indentifying with a faction. The Reveller is no overpowered VHC also.

thesis??

I think its a horrible idea, because faction requirements in general is a bad idea - IMO all faction requirements should be removed.

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 15:00
And why are faction based requirements in general a bad idea? Your arguments lack justification. That is why i cannot understand your attidude. The Reveller is not very strong in PVP and PVE and ergo gives no unjustified advantages.

Brammers
19-09-12, 15:01
Remove VHC req. Tie vehicle speed, handling and traction to VHC.

Remove HC req for vehicle weapons, base weapon performance off primarily WEP, but also all the main combat skills, PC, RC, HC, MC, RCL, etc.

Like the idea of linking VHC to speed, handling and traction. Would make for some interesting races as well.


Yes... only a NEXT-member (not my prefered faction) should be able to drive it. We have these kind of reqirements on other faction items too (CA-Armor, CM-Chip, ...). Other factions can use the 4x4 chaincraft. Also the Jones-Quad doesn't blow up. Thats why we see so few other vhc-types used.

CM-Chip does not have a faction requirement http://www.techhaven.org/db/showitem/1757.html The only epic items with a faction requirement is the CA-Armour.

P.S. I don't like the idea of faction-only items, it can limit the choices of setups.

Dropout
19-09-12, 15:04
And why are faction based requirements in general a bad idea? Your arguments lack justification. That is why i cannot understand your attidude.

It stops the items from being traded.
And IMO that is a bad thing - I have done many epics in the past, and have sold most of them, since there was a lot of those rewards that I did not need myself.

And some of the Epic items are too good for being one faction only (PPR).

nEo-1664
19-09-12, 15:05
Also the Jones-Quad doesn't blow up. Thats why we see so few other vhc-types used.



And Neo; The Quad (from the Driver-Jones mission) is indestructible aswell.
Which I dont mind btw - It IS from a Jones mission, so you shouldnt be able to Loose it - just like all the other Jones rewards.

My bad, I completely forgot about the Jones-Quad! :)

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 15:08
It stops the items from being traded.
And IMO that is a bad thing - I have done many epics in the past, and have sold most of them, since there was a lot of those rewards that I did not need myself.

And some of the Epic items are too good for being one faction only (PPR).

But you can still buy/trade the 4x4-Chaincraft and nobody spoke of making the PPR faction-only.
Problem remains: Nobody uses destructibe VHCs, except the tank for hunting.

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 15:11
P.S. I don't like the idea of faction-only items, it can limit the choices of setups.

Brammers, me too. I only talk of the Reveller. That won't limit the choice of setups. Generally a good argument, but it doesn't fit here.

Dropout
19-09-12, 15:14
But you can still buy/trade the 4x4-Chaincraft and nobody spoke of making the PPR faction-only.
Problem remains: Nobody uses destructibe VHCs, except the tank for hunting.

But if the Reveler gets a faction requirement tag, why not all the faction epics?
IMO if one Epic has a faction requirement tag, they all should - thats why Im very much against faction requirements.

Hmm since when does anyone use the Reveler though? o.O
Didnt think anyone used anything but Quads and flying stuff (gliders and hoverbomber/carrier)..

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 15:24
But if the Reveler gets a faction requirement tag, why not all the faction epics?
IMO if one Epic has a faction requirement tag, they all should - thats why Im very much against faction requirements.

Hmm since when does anyone use the Reveler though? o.O
Didnt think anyone used anything but Quads and flying stuff (gliders and hoverbomber/carrier)..

Because that solves a problem and doesn't create new. When you remove the indestructability of the Quad the next thing ist, that the people again use the Reveller.

Brammers
19-09-12, 15:25
But you can still buy/trade the 4x4-Chaincraft and nobody spoke of making the PPR faction-only.
Problem remains: Nobody uses destructibe VHCs, except the tank for hunting.

The PPR is also indestructible. It never looses quality when it is repaired. (In fact all faction epic items are indestructible) If you are going to add faction requirement to Revellers you need to look at the bigger picture of adding faction requirement to every epic item. And using a reveller for hunting can be considered just as part a setup to the gun you use. Anyone I think faction requirements on items is another topic entirely.

However we are looking at this the wrong way around. Maybe we should make all vehicles indestructible. Or perhaps when we have made the vehicle key, we can mod the key with a expensive "Insurance" mod - so the player just has to pay the small repair bill at the ASG, like it is now for the Jones and Reveller, instead of the player being left with a useless key.

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 16:02
If you are going to add faction requirement to Revellers you need to look at the bigger picture of adding faction requirement to every epic item.

I don't understand why we automatically must give that status to all other epic-items, when the REV becomes fac-only. The one doesn't force the other in my opinion. Also it is obvious, that not all things in NC are perfectly logic. We haven't the ressources (and ideas) to build a whole new game-system that is logic in itself and 100% balanced at the same time. What we now need are pratical solutions to the biggest problems to create a more coloured and fair game-experience.

Your proposal would fix the problem too, but i think it damages an important aspect of a plausible game-world: realism. Also it removes a neccessary money-sink (-->economy)

Tratos
19-09-12, 16:24
I quite like the idea of removing vehicle requirements or atleast making them lower as I agree driving is a secondary skill.

Regarding the Reveler, I think the problem here is how easy it is to get it back. After all it blows up like any other vehicle the only difference is its still repairable by an ASG, this is the part I think should change.

Upon destruction the Reveler should act like any other vehicle, you now have a dead key which is of no use. To get a new reveler you should have to take this dead key to a NeXT employee at their test facility i.e. Desert Racetrack. The NPC will then swap the keys for a new functional key and remove the old one, taking it out of the ecosystem. To make this work for enemies the NPC can of course be crooked, happy to serve allies as expected but will also give a nod to NeXT defectors as long as he was never there to give you the key wink wink nudge nudge.

This should also be the case for the Newbie Quad, using a neutral NPC from the Driver Jones mission or another NPC which fits the story of that item.

This means you remove the magic button for these vehicles which is the reason they're used above and beyond everything else. They would still be the first choice as you get it back when it goes boom but you'd then have people with reserve vehicles as they cant just run back to the ASG and respawn the same one all the time. This keep these vehicles important as you still get a vehicle for life, you just have to go out of your way to get it, which is probably enough of a reason for people to buy and use other vehicles. You could even take this to the next level and have these NPCs charge for a replacement key but at a lower cost than ASG repairs/a new equivilent vehicle. If that were done too, we'd also have another nice new money sink the game so desperately needs.

This gets around most of the "unfair" bonuses of these vehicles, I think?

Brammers
19-09-12, 16:25
I don't understand why we automatically must give that status to all other epic-items, when the REV becomes fac-only. The one doesn't force the other in my opinion. Also it is obvious, that not all things in NC are perfectly logic. We haven't the ressources (and ideas) to build a whole new game-system that is logic in itself and 100% balanced at the same time. What we now need are pratical solutions to the biggest problems to create a more coloured and fair game-experience.

FYI are 14 Faction epic items - http://www.techhaven.org/db/view/epic.html

Adding faction requirements does not make the game more coloured and fair game-experience. In fact as you just argued, it makes the game more restrictive, and certainly less coloured. As I said repetitively you can't just suddenly add a faction requirement to a an epic item, without looking at the rest of the epic items. For a start, PP runners with non-drivable revellers will be demanding that their PPR chips are PP only. As a Fallen Angel runner, I certainly won't want NEXT runners using Techhaven CPU if I can't drive their Reveller... Hopefully you got the picture now ;)

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 16:59
FYI are 14 Faction epic items - http://www.techhaven.org/db/view/epic.html

Adding faction requirements does not make the game more coloured and fair game-experience. In fact as you just argued, it makes the game more restrictive, and certainly less coloured. As I said repetitively you can't just suddenly add a faction requirement to a an epic item, without looking at the rest of the epic items. For a start, PP runners with non-drivable revellers will be demanding that their PPR chips are PP only. As a Fallen Angel runner, I certainly won't want NEXT runners using Techhaven CPU if I can't drive their Reveller... Hopefully you got the picture now ;)

C'mon we have that situation with the CA-Armor for a long time...truly noone cares, although it really affects the PVP-setup-possibilities. I want so see the various vehicle-types used in NC, atm they are quite useless content. That is what I mean with colorfull.

@ Tratos: Interesting Ideas

Dropout
19-09-12, 18:25
C'mon we have that situation with the CA-Armor for a long time...truly noone cares, although it really affects the PVP-setup-possibilities. I want so see the various vehicle-types used in NC, atm they are quite useless content. That is what I mean with colorfull.

@ Tratos: Interesting Ideas

Yes, and that faction restriction should be removed.

What your really trying to say, is that you want to be the only one using a Reveler, since noone else (especially people who pvp's) is NEXT..


@Tratos;
Very good idea. However, I fear that it would require too much Work, for something that really doesnt matter.

William Antrim
19-09-12, 18:44
If you make faction items ALL faction only then you would have to make the items better for that faction and also make a heck of a lot of work to improve the weapons/items significantly or there would be a lot of empty factions.

For example - this idea came up years ago (when the Gaia Gauntlet was first introduced to NC) and someone said make it so that only Crahn Monks can use it. The reply was a resounding no. You would confer a massive advantage on that one faction to have Monks. Tanks would have a choice to go to PP, BT or possibly TT (for the cannon) and no other really good factions, tradeskillers would all lean towards FA and the spies would all end up as CA (if their armour was worth using). Rifle PE's would end up TS (provided again the weapons worked). No I don't like this.

The problem is you cant create some diversity by ADDING restrictions. That is simply not possible.

What would be good is faction specific weapons - within a specific class or classes but based on guns that ALREADY exist in NC but perhaps with a different colour laser beam or something else similar. We would want AT BEST aesthetic changes - IE many years ago someone else came up with the idea of adding some more stuff to factions like uniforms! You would have to complete your epic to get your uniform and then possibly trade a PA (just like the WOC system for armour currently) and you get given a PA for your uniform with the same stats but it gives you a different skin.

This i would like but not the restriction you came up Bruder.

Dribble Joy
19-09-12, 18:50
I don't mind faction restrictions so long as there are equivalents for others.

CM could have a jeep/hummer of some kind, CA a special ops hovercarrier, FA some form of research glider, etc.
Similarly you could have PAs that are functionally identical but have a different skin/model.
Same can be done with weapons as well, a TL115 gat cannon for CM, drone for FA, etc.

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 21:43
Yes, and that faction restriction should be removed.

What your really trying to say, is that you want to be the only one using a Reveler, since noone else (especially people who pvp's) is NEXT...

Lol, do you think you can provoke me with such cheap allegations? I never played NEXT and never will. Everybody can use that vehicle anyway, because the 4x4-Chaincraft is identical. What I want is making destructible vehicles a competitive choice. The biggest problem is not the Reveller atm., it is the Quad. Undestructible vehicles reduce clearly the attractiveness of all the other vehicles. I thinks I don't have to proove that claim, because you can see the result ingame every day. Another negativ side-effect is, that there are only few incentives to battle against a vehicle to destroy it. But I always liked the atmosphere of danger the game used to had. Also more vehicles must be destroyed to create an effectiv money-sink!

And the assumption, that you cannot improve diversity with restrictions sounds logically, but isn't. Look at our real economies: We try to prevent monopolies to secure fair competition since Adam Smith wrote his theories in the 18th century. To be clear: I am clearly against adding a faction-only-status to all the other epics, because of the problems you mentioned. But in the special case of the Reveller I think it is doable, with only positive side-effects.

Dropout
19-09-12, 23:01
Hmm I was sure that I had seen you write somewhere, that you were NEXT yourself..
And just to clear Things up, this would in NO WAY have any effect on myself, as not one of my characters can drive..
However, the problem that I personally fear is that if they start putting faction restriction on one more Epic, why not on them all..?

THATS the reason why Im against this..
I couldnt possibly care less about the Reveler itself.

Bruder Malmsdoo
19-09-12, 23:51
Hmm I was sure that I had seen you write somewhere, that you were NEXT yourself..
And just to clear Things up, this would in NO WAY have any effect on myself, as not one of my characters can drive..
However, the problem that I personally fear is that if they start putting faction restriction on one more Epic, why not on them all..?
Because that would be a bad idea concerning the overall balancing, setups and freedom (Antrim, and Brammers are right in that regard).



THATS the reason why Im against this..
I couldnt possibly care less about the Reveler itself.
Me too. :)

Dropout
20-09-12, 04:08
Because that would be a bad idea concerning the overall balancing, setups and freedom (Antrim, and Brammers are right in that regard).
Obviously :p

But as I said, when they start putting it on one (more) item, they could just aswell put it on them all.
KK worked in mysterious ways.. Hopefully the volunteers has some sense though :)

I would definately be more for removing the faction req from the NCPD armor, if they were to change those kinda settings though. Since that actually could have an effect on more important Things (PVP setups :D )

Dribble Joy
20-09-12, 09:30
the Quad.
Indeed. It's fast, cheap to repair, handles well, has low reqs and is indestructible.

If it was a genuine noob vehicle it would be slow, better than walking but not as fast as it is now.
I don't mind indestructible vehicles, but the cost of bringing them back from the dead needs to be massively increased.

Nose
20-09-12, 10:14
I don't mind indestructible vehicles, but the cost of bringing them back from the dead needs to be massively increased.

I second that! like in eve, we need to have the constant athmosphere of danger lurking around in the game. that's what makes it special. get ganked by others? part of the game. get tricked and robbed? part of the game. loose everything? well ... :)

so please as little security as possible. including no indestructible vehicles. or at least, they should cost a fortune to regain.

Grogor
20-09-12, 16:42
If there weren't indestructible vehicles, you'd see even less vehicles. The only way not to loose a vehicle in this game is to drive from warp garage to warp garage and despawn your vehicle. If your not in the most abanndoned sector or you not permanently stay at your vehicle, it will be destroyed. So if all vehicles are destructible everyone would walk.

Bruder Malmsdoo
20-09-12, 17:17
If there weren't indestructible vehicles, you'd see even less vehicles. The only way not to loose a vehicle in this game is to drive from warp garage to warp garage and despawn your vehicle. If your not in the most abanndoned sector or you not permanently stay at your vehicle, it will be destroyed. So if all vehicles are destructible everyone would walk.

I don't think so. I remember the times, when there was no Quad. The players used a lot of the other vehicles. The overall runspeed was slower (heyho clipping) and running through the wastes was a pain without a verhicle. The Reveller was much slower then eg. the Hovertech. You had to hide your vehicles, if you let them behind. And when they got destroyed: Ouch! Peoples bought a new one. Killing Vechicles....Joy. Evolution 2.2 killed not only the vhc-pve combat, but the overall vhc-balance.

Kanedax
20-09-12, 17:58
I miss rolling up on peoples vehicles and blowing them up. :D

Grogor
21-09-12, 04:59
[...]I remember the times, when there was no Quad.


Nope. Started playing with Evo 2.2 on Mars with a average population of 0-1%. So no i don't remember. I'm sort of antagonist to all you ahhh the good 'ol times people.
I have allmost all the vehicles on terra, even the quad and ther reveller, but when i have to decide between walk and possibly loosing my vehicle to someone, who can't resist the urge to destroy it, well, I walk.
Cause I love my vehicles.
I really do love them.
And you don't let others destroy the things you love.

tbird
21-09-12, 11:35
I would like to throw out the idea to remove the driving profession altogether, as driving should be considered a secondary skill and should be treated as such.
...
I would suggest that VHC should no longer be required, that vehicles instead be linked to your level. Early levels you can use quad, moving on to bikes, hovertecs then mid range 25-45 you gain use of combat vehicles. One near cap 50+ you get to use all flying and high end combat rhino etc.

If your taking a combat vehicle then the gunner will still require the combat skill necessary to shoot it, don't want to unbalance combat! Just allow people to make more use of them.
...


/agree



...
Plus: Vehicles should be able to take more player dmg. A tank is a tank.
[/QUOTE]

/agree

VHC must be removed. Every Character should be able to drive for example a Hovertec without taking penalties in their combat-skills.