[T#182] Testserver Patch Discussion

[Faid]

Can a Dev please answer why they think it's a good idea for un-LE'd players to have the ability to destroy LE'd peoples vehicles? I want to know what the reasoning is for this.

Is it because of the LE'd rhino blocking loot? Because if that's it, then this change is a gross overstep in the wrong direction. As William Antrim has pointed out multiple times now, There is no competition when rhinoing, so there's no one there to block your loot anymore. So now that that's cleared up, why would you implement this very bad vehicle change?

Seriously this is the patch discussion thread right? Can a Dev please explain this game changing addition to vehicle mechanics?

Or do the Devs not even read these threads? In which case please let us know so we can stop wasting our time here.

[Gunshifty]

I realise you guys disagree and I honestly knew you would. I can accept that and I can see things from your point of view but at the end of the day it is just a game. This is not real life. We are not at war. If people lose a rhino... big deal. Its not like they got ganked. It is just a vehicle. You never know, the revenge emotion they might feel might prompt them to want to take out the le and feel even more immersed in this glorious world we call Neocron.

It might make some people quit yes but it might also bring new benefits to the game. The costs and benefits have to be weighed up and I think that both sides are making some convincing arguments for and against these changes.

The only thing I disagree with here is the DEV's new vehicle implementation. Don't get me wrong, I think the patch is 80% awesome with the exception of this vehicle concept being changed. I understand at the end of the day it's just a game, it doesn't have real life consequences. But hopefully my posts do bring up ideas in which people tend to agree with, and furthermore, help shape the game we all include as our hobby.

If it makes people quit then why even consider the implementation? There are MANY MANY other ways to bring new benefits to the game, the easiest one I can think of would be to consider putting in new implants/new items/etc.

I still have yet to see why any of these new vehicle changes would benefit the server. I'm trying to see it from your perspective. All this vehicle change does is gives superiority to the Un-LE'd player because they're the ones who can now sit their rhinos on mobs if lets say you're an LE'd person killing those mobs. The LE'd guy won't be able to do anything against that Un-LE'd guy stealing his rares/junk/items. How is that even fair?! William, I'm not blaming you for playing Devil's Advocate here, but I would really really want some DEV input here. All this vehicle implementation is doing is harming the LE'd community, and only benefiting the Un-LE'd players.

If the DEV's team purpose is to make the game feel dangerous then they should re-visit the concept of making Plaza/Via safe zones and making Pepper Park the "dangerous" environment that it's suppose to be. That thread already has a lot of community input in which there is still very little DEV/Support team insight. If this Brainport is here to introduce and discuss new ideas, why is it that we don't at least have a reason behind the vehicle implementation? The whole "the LE protects the runner but doesn't protect his belongings" is not a reason to implement this vehicle patch. All it's implying is "Sorry, but the LE only protects you, but any Un-LE'd person will have the upper-hand in any scenario. The Un-LE'd person will then be able to blow up your rhino (or combat vehicle) and then camp on top of your mob you just killed, and finally, be able to loot YOUR kill that you just worked on. ALL because you decided to keep your LE in."

[Trivaldi]

Faid,

We read every post in these threads for internal discussions and often like to see where the discussion goes before we make any comment, if any is required, which is usually not the case.

Let it be known that we do not need to explain nor clarify decisions made in patches when it comes to game design decisions. However, based on the lengthy discussion in this and other threads we are preparing a statement to cover as many angles as possible regarding this particular change.

It will arrive Soon™. Until that time, we ask for patience and of course further testing of other patch elements.

Cheers,

[Gunshifty]

faid,

we read every post in these threads for internal discussions and often like to see where the discussion goes before we make any comment, if any is required which is usually not the case.

Let it be known that we do not need to explain nor clarify decisions made in patches when it comes to game design decisions. However, based on the lengthy discussion in this and other threads we are preparing a statement to cover as many angles as possible regarding this particular change.

It will arrive soon™. Until that time, we ask for patience and of course further testing of other patch elements.

Cheers,

thank you! <3

[Faid]

Faid,

We read every post in these threads for internal discussions and often like to see where the discussion goes before we make any comment, if any is required, which is usually not the case.

Let it be known that we do not need to explain nor clarify decisions made in patches when it comes to game design decisions. However, based on the lengthy discussion in this and other threads we are preparing a statement to cover as many angles as possible regarding this particular change.

It will arrive Soon™. Until that time, we ask for patience and of course further testing of other patch elements.

Cheers,

I hope that part about you guys not having to explain why you are making a huge change to the game isn't the road you're going to take. With the whole "better communication" thing you guys have been working on lately I think you guys are making great progress with the game so far and I appreciate everything everyone over there has done and is doing



Thankyou for the response Triv, it sometimes feels like we're talking to a brick wall Especially with something as important as this change.

[Ivan Eres]

We are discussing a game design philosophy here.

We need to have certain corner stones for the future design of the game, so that it can evolve.

In the patch notes it was stated that "the LE protects the runner but not his belongings". This is the philospohy behind it.

To me this makes sense.

If we would choose to protect everything a LE'd player owns then we would have to do this:

1.) Protect every stamina booster, every gun, and every piece of armor a LE'd player owns
2.) Protect his appartment from being entered by non LE
3.) Make the LE'd players invisible for non LE players, so that they cannot be moved around, scammed, shot at by copbots and so on
4.) Make trading impossible between LE and non LE players
5.) Make every item that an LE player drops invisible to non LE players

And so on.

This would mean completely separating LE'd players from the non LE.

This is the wrong way for me. Separating the players does not make sense to me.

The players should stay in the same world, and be able to play together.

But if we would choose the philosphy "protect everything for LE'd players" this would be the logical end to it, for me. And I don't like this.

I've been playing without an LE ever since and I've lost a few Rhinos already. OFC it pisses me off. Especially since almost every vet will attack the Rhino on sight.

If they destroy the Rhino there is no punishment for them even if it is an allied vehicle. They can destroy it with every fucking weapon they have, even small fire arms. They can destroy it in 10 seconds with a good weapon, which is a joke.

Yes, these are the problems we really have regarding vehicles, and especially Rhinos, in my opinion.

But these must be changed one by one. I do not think it is the right way to simply protect a vehicle from being attacked at all.

Protecting it completely form damage does not make sense to me regarding the game philosophy, the lore, and for the integration of the LE in the game world.

If I go Rhino'ing myself I am used to always keep looking for other runners in the sector. I always choose sectors where I most likely won't meet other runners. Every fire mob sector is an absolute no-go for me because I have always been attacked by other runners.

Anyway, I think we will find a good way for NC if we keep aiming for the goal to make the game better, instead of making it only good for oneself.

All will be good, soon.

Peace out :-)

[nabbl]

Runspeed-changes are very fine in my opinion. There will need to be some overall adjustments to the weapon damage or aiming as it is currently a bit too easy for high WPL chars to hit other players. On the other hand decent movement becomes even more important.

I would suggest to wait for the players changing their setups away from speed up to resists to determine how these changes influence op fights.

[Gunshifty]

In the patch notes it was stated that "the LE protects the runner but not his belongings". This is the philospohy behind it.

To me this makes sense.

Maybe it took your post to make me realize this Ivan Eres, but the statement "the LE protects the runner but not his belongings" is a contradicting statement. It's like an oxymoron. Think about that statement. What do you think the LE does when an LE'd person dies? It protects them from losing ANY of their belongings. To say the quoted statement above is contradicting the whole entire purpose of the LE.

the 'LE' protects the runner = true
the 'LE' protects the runner's belongings = true
the LE protects the runner but not his belongings = contradicting

In summary, the LE already protects the runner's belongings. It always has. Its why we don't drop belts when we die. With this new vehicle mechanic, it's basically saying: "your vehicle is screwed but it's okay, all your belongings except your vehicles are safe". If you're still not getting it..

The LE protects runners from dropping(losing) ANYTHING THEY OWN. That means if I placed my rare weapon in quickslots 2 through X, the LE protects my belongings because I will never lose that rare weapon.

The quoted statement above is a contradiction because it is saying that the LE'd runner's vehicle is NOT protected from being destroyed or lost, EVEN THOUGH the vehicle belongs to an LE'd character. Hence not protecting his belongings, thus, losing my vehicle.

But if we would choose the philosphy "protect everything for LE'd players" this would be the logical end to it, for me. And I don't like this.

the LE already protects everything for LE'd players. I don't understand why losing a Vehicle to someone who doesn't have an LE in makes any sense at all.

Anyway, I think we will find a good way for NC if we keep aiming for the goal to make the game better, instead of making it only good for oneself.

The only thing this patch/vehicle implementation is doing is making it better for being Un-LE'd. AKA(Also Known As) better for oneself who does not have an LE'd in. If the goal is to make the game better A) don't change the mechanics, leave it the way they are now, or B) Make it fair to both LE'd/Un-LE'd runners to own vehicles that are not Quads/Revelers.

[Faid]

At the end of the day it comes down to the fact that you can now shoot and damage something that cannot shoot or damage you back and that is wrong in any context, no matter how you try to justify it.

[r2d22k]

Maybe it took your post to make me realize this Ivan Eres, but the statement "the LE protects the runner but not his belongings" is a contradicting statement. It's like an oxymoron. Think about that statement. What do you think the LE does when an LE'd person dies? It protects them from losing ANY of their belongings. To say the quoted statement above is contradicting the whole entire purpose of the LE.

the 'LE' protects the runner = true
the 'LE' protects the runner's belongings = true
the LE protects the runner but not his belongings = contradicting

This is an absurd way of discussing things, you are intentionally twisting the devs' words. My opinion: As a dev, I would simply ignore you (however obviously, as Trivaldi stated, they don't, which they definitely deserve a hell lot of respect for), because someone who is intentionally twisting words is not up for discussion in my opinion. Instead he/she just wants to be a "dickhead" who just wants to be in the end the person who is right and only cares about himself/herself. So please read between the lines and think about what the devs really ment there and discuss what they intended to do, not something weird and twisted. In the end make a well layed out proposal, take into account all different possibilities and then discuss. Twisting other people's words will just make them angry.

The point of the above quoted statement from the devs is in my opinion that the law enforcer protects you from being killed and that's it. (Sideremark: I am fine with that statement and since non law enforced players do not drop their whole inventory, law enforced players should neither.) I think what is needed instead of reworking the vehicle ruleset again is a rework of the soullight system. Destroying other people's vehicles should also have a negative impact on your soullight, especially in case those people are allied. The sl impact should maybe be even a little bit worse when destroying vehicles of law enforced players, because they are "under the protection of the ncpd". To make this change hurt there are definitely more changes to the soullight system needed, but in my opinion this would be a good starting point for discussion.

[EDIT @ FAID]
So harassing others without them being able to do something about it is okay then? The problem of vehicles and whom may shot whom is an unsolvable one, because someone will always be upset in the end. Cause if LEd players may shoot back, LEd players may not be punished in the end. Sure their vehicles might get destroyed, but in Neocron only the death is a real punishment.

[Faid]

So you would rather have UN-LE'd people harrassing LE'd people than the other way around? How about we come up with a solution where no harrassment is involved. Maybe make it so you can't steal other peoples loot, it only opens for the person that killed it. Maybe make it so vehicles can't physically park on top of the corpses. There are plenty of ways to do this fairly.

A way to determine if something is fair is to switch the scenario.

What if any LE'd person were able to shoot and destroy any Un-LE'd peoples vehicles with creeds or healing lights and the UN-LE'd werent able to do anything about it? I'd say that would be pretty unfair, as would I'm sure, most everyone. So why would it be ok the other way around?

[Trivaldi]

Until we release further information and clarification about the change surrounding Vehicles and the Law Enforcer, any further posts on the matter will be deleted - without warning - from this thread. In the mean time I suggest you test the other features of this patch and discuss those instead.

Without clarification further discussion about the Law Enforcer's connection to Vehicles is futile.

Thanks,

[Ivan Eres]

I just tested buffing and healing a LE with my non LE PPU on Vedeena and it works like a charm. I also tried DB'ing the LE char and it is not even possible to aim, so that's fine too. Honestly, for a PPU player this is a great game play change. Thx.

[Ryan Flint]

So we tested the speed cap in 4vs4/5vs5 scenarios and it's already 100% better than what we got on the retail server, actually going back to retail afterwards was a pain in the a**.
Please bring the cap asap as more and more people decided not to play until the current situation on titan has been addressed.

[Gunshifty]

Does anyone else think (or want) a character stat reset for when the patch hits to address the changes to setups? I know in previous years there have been times after patches where I would login to some (if not all) of my characters and their points were reset. Maybe it's just me, but with significant gameplay changes to speed & even the whole having Un-LE'd PPUs support LE'd characters, I wouldn't mind a stat reset applied to everyones account.. It would just be nice, but definitely not necessary.