Vehicle Development guidelines....

Discuss and provide feedback on Maps.
User avatar
captainsnarf
Posts: 2630
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:51 pm
Location: Washington
Server Sponsor: Yes
Server Admin: Yes
Contact:

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by captainsnarf »

I admit, I am still butt hurt from last night, heh :lol:
User avatar
Enyo
Posts: 1622
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:27 pm
Server Sponsor: Yes
Server Admin: Yes

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by Enyo »

captainsnarf wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:00 pm I admit, I am still butt hurt from last night, heh :lol:
I had a feeling that was the impetus behind your post.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
User avatar
infinitecat
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:02 pm
Location: Dallas

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by infinitecat »

Anyone ever play Battletech?

When it came to designing 'mechs and vehicles there was an elegant formula for capability that relied on tonnage, from 5-100 tons. You could apply the tonnage to engines (the bigger, the faster), weapons, armor and/or heat sinks. As a result, there was no perfect vehicle or 'mech but the possibilities were endless.

Something like that could be very useful applied to vehicle design in Unreal instead of the "whatever feels right" method that seemingly always needs tweaking.
User avatar
captainsnarf
Posts: 2630
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:51 pm
Location: Washington
Server Sponsor: Yes
Server Admin: Yes
Contact:

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by captainsnarf »

It' a good idea. It's hard to keep track of all of their data. We really could use a spreadsheet.

How are the Wyvern and Pulse traitor different? They are both essentially mantas with lasers.

Pulse traitor applies negative momentum when it hits. How much 'tonnage' does that count for? It might be useful to use a common factor, but it might also be moving the goal posts. Instead of going with what feels right we start trying to go with how much tonnage is negative momentum worth, and endlessly tweak that instead. Still, it would be nice to have a spreadsheet with a total column that we could see some kind of relation.

I've always felt the Mino should be the queen of our chess table. No vehicle we make should be stronger. They should all be weaker.
User avatar
Super Sanka
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:12 pm
Location: Orlando
Contact:

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by Super Sanka »

I don't think it's OP at all in its current state. Maps just need to have better balance of vehicles. For example if the map has an Omnihelix or Arbiter that would balance out Falcon and Wasp's ability to get to nodes and outmanuever ground tanks.

I also think we should just have one model of flyer per map. I hate that skyminer shit just put the strongest version of it.
User avatar
pooty
Posts: 4351
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:22 am
Location: Michigan
Server Sponsor: Yes
Server Admin: Yes

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by pooty »

. Maps just need to have better balance of vehicles.
Yes. That's part of the reason that you always get a troop carrier (damn it I hate that name... Lets call it the armadillo - name that's in map editor, since no one ever uses it as a troop carrier) on Minus Rando at 1/2 to counter the endless stream of flyers. You also always get a centaur at the core on minus as well to counter flyers.

MassD is perfect example....people complain about their base getting pummeled by flyers when 4 turrets sit empty, rail tank, hurricane are all in the base unused....map has lots of anti-air but if the team never uses them...

Vehicle balance is much more difficult on Randomizers because of the randomness. When I do non-randomizer edits and put in some powerful flyers, I always include some anti-air to counter.

I don't think we change the falcon, its been nerfed from the most powerful version. Its what I would call a top tier flyer. The Warhawk, Mirage vulture don't have the air-to-air that Falcon does, but they are tougher and do more damage. I think there's a strict limit on anything more powerful for sure. About the only thing I would say for Falcon is maybe add some extra damage from a few weapons...give it some kind of weakness as overall its pretty potent. Unlike the wasp, the falcon can shoot from quite a distance..

But the Enyo Falcon is perfect example of what I brought up. Take the Falcon in Enyo's hands (or Railgun with Sanka/Nautikal), they can be game changers... but is that really any different than a skilled mino driver? I know even with my average skills if the team lets me play in the mino for a while on Minus I can wreck that team....

So that's why I said careful evaluation of each vehicle... just because someone is really good in it,remember all the whining about the Wraith beam -- till people figured it out..isn't a reason to nerf, but a reason to double check. Think about the Omega its range was broken...with the powerful ION blast it should NEVER be able to damage you outside of Avril Range. Yes the mino can do that, but the mino can't just up and fly behind a building.
User avatar
Super Sanka
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:12 pm
Location: Orlando
Contact:

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by Super Sanka »

Yes it's different because driver skill is what makes those vehicles deadly. Mino is just inherently more powerful and can kill 90% of things in one hit. I actually think the splash damage should be reduced and reward accuracy more. Right now the only thing that separates bad minos from good ones is map and game knowledge.
User avatar
YEAAAHHHHHHHHHH
Posts: 1056
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:03 pm
Server Sponsor: Yes
Server Admin: Yes

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by YEAAAHHHHHHHHHH »

Super Sanka wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 2:20 pm Yes it's different because driver skill is what makes those vehicles deadly. Mino is just inherently more powerful and can kill 90% of things in one hit. I actually think the splash damage should be reduced and reward accuracy more. Right now the only thing that separates bad minos from good ones is map and game knowledge.
Nooo! Leave the splash damage. There are specific shots that we regularly use which require splash damage. It's an element of the game now.
User avatar
captainsnarf
Posts: 2630
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:51 pm
Location: Washington
Server Sponsor: Yes
Server Admin: Yes
Contact:

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by captainsnarf »

YEAAAHHHHHHHHHH wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:50 pm
Super Sanka wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 2:20 pm Yes it's different because driver skill is what makes those vehicles deadly. Mino is just inherently more powerful and can kill 90% of things in one hit. I actually think the splash damage should be reduced and reward accuracy more. Right now the only thing that separates bad minos from good ones is map and game knowledge.
Nooo! Leave the splash damage. There are specific shots that we regularly use which require splash damage. It's an element of the game now.
It's not a good element :lol: Park the mino in the dognuts spot only works with the omnituar. Don't you get tired of the same maps with the same strategies? I liked the old mino better, or even the lobreaker. At least you have to aim with those.
User avatar
McLovin
Posts: 1165
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:54 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Server Sponsor: Yes
Server Admin: Yes

Re: Vehicle Development guidelines....

Post by McLovin »

YEAAAHHHHHHHHHH wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:50 pm ...
Nooo! Leave the splash damage. There are specific shots that we regularly use which require splash damage. It's an element of the game now.
Agreed. Splash damage is an important part of the game now. From the dognuts spot I can splash damage 6 nodes.
Post Reply