*sam* Posted May 18, 2010, 9:14 pm	Just to let you know I'm tweaking a few of the stress rules - specifically those that aren't dealing with large numbers of characters well, which cause very large combats to turn into 'cascading demos' Even more specifically - there are a number of places where longterm stress is added to everyone on one side of the combat, such as when one of their members takes a big injury. This is currently a fixed number regardless of the size of the forces, therefore gets overwhelmed. I'm going to have these scale according to the size of the combat. edit: I might get a few NPCs hooked on zerk, too.
*Wolfsbane* Posted May 18, 2010, 9:27 pm	*sam* said: I might get a few NPCs hooked on zerk, too.  Heh heh heh.
FireFly Posted May 18, 2010, 9:39 pm	Can you clarify this a little bit, as in, how hard will it be to capture loot intact? For example, If I completely destroy 12/35 cars, can I expect the rest to give up, that would be killing about 24 enemy chars, and the rest would be under heavy mortar fire?
*Ninesticks* Posted May 18, 2010, 9:46 pm	No clarification needed on this one surely, just experimentation - this definitely needs to be a hidden number. Sam said: edit: I might get a few NPCs hooked on zerk, too. Go on, go on, go on!
*sam* Posted May 18, 2010, 9:54 pm	FireFly said: Can you clarify this a little bit, as in, how hard will it be to capture loot intact? For example, If I completely destroy 12/35 cars, can I expect the rest to give up, that would be killing about 24 enemy chars, and the rest would be under heavy mortar fire? It's hard to say exactly, FF. The problem, as I said, was because of the linear way in which some long-term stress effects were being applied. The large amounts of pristine loot from large scouts was disproportionate to risk/skill.
*sam* Posted May 18, 2010, 9:55 pm	RE zerk: this is something that I'm making certain NPC gangs to be much more predisposed to than others. Obviously the dopeheads, (and to a lesser extent the mutants), will be the heaviest users. But generally those gangs described as crazy or extreme will be inclined towards zerk.
*Ninesticks* Posted May 18, 2010, 9:58 pm	Are they going to be proper zerkers or just simulating some but not all of the effects?
*sam* Posted May 18, 2010, 10:06 pm	Same effects as a player-character zerker yep.. right down to the growling (I assume the random drug-specific-chat does actually work?)
*Wolfsbane* Posted May 18, 2010, 10:16 pm	Alcohol is the only one I've seen used in a scout (at one point every mechanic over 50 skill in my gang was at least a light user) and the "hic" chat certainly works. I have a zerker but he hasn't used it in combat yet.
*Tinker* Posted May 18, 2010, 10:17 pm	*sam* said: Same effects as a player-character zerker yep.. right down to the growling    (I assume the random drug-specific-chat does actually work?) growling? as in a text bubble above a players car saying "I"M A ZERK HEAD"? never seen that
*sam* Posted May 18, 2010, 10:23 pm	Sounds like it works, from what Wolfsbane says. Zerkers say "Growl!" occasionally. It's only seen when they're peds though.
*goat starer* Posted May 19, 2010, 12:44 am	sam... think its tweaked too much... nine and i just had a very long scout and return to demo everything.. i should really be in bed!
Zephyr Posted May 19, 2010, 1:56 am	FireFly said: Can you clarify this a little bit, as in, how hard will it be to capture loot intact? For example, If I completely destroy 12/35 cars, can I expect the rest to give up, that would be killing about 24 enemy chars, and the rest would be under heavy mortar fire? My guess is, that's exactly the kind of scenario Sam wants to prevent with this change.  While the "Mega-Scouts" are fun, it does feel a bit exploitative to take advantage of the "cascading demos" mechanic. Perhaps we can have NPCs try harder and more frequently to break off and escape when a battle is not going in their favor?  It would make chasers more useful in non-Trader caravan scouts.
JS Posted May 19, 2010, 2:52 am	I think the "cascading" is quite realistic. Panic is contagious as they say. If it is a tweak then I'm all for it. But just changing bravery such that we have to shoot more just because we are effective at killing the first to engage doesn't seem like the answer to me. Also, having demoed guys still charge in and engage is a problem as well. If demoed guys tried to get away I would not have an issue with makng fewer of them demo, or adjusting the cascade. But there should be some kind of cascade. They lose heart becasue they are losing their hearts...
simonmaxhill Posted May 19, 2010, 6:51 am	This is long overdue, in my "never does anything like a megascout" opinion.
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 7:12 am	This is a really really bad idea...It's not the destruction of loot that worries me, I never had a problem with blowing thing up... its how extremely long these events will take... Then if cars start scattering in directions while the demoed and half dead cars continue fighting... please tell me, how is this "Fun"?Having to smash 33/35 vehicles to pieces, because one or two of them got stuck on a map like the pits, and the only way to reach them is trough all of the enemy cars, imagine that, just imagine it, its not not hard, but it would be painfully long. These Cascades are not unrealistic to begin with, tell me, how would you react if a much stronger, more heavily armed, and better hitting foe attacked you, your allies starting to drop left and right by the second, being swatted like flies, would you feel pretty confident? Either you change how a demoed car works... or thank you lots for messing the game up completely for anyone who likes larger scouts, this wont make anything a bigger challenge, it will simply serve to annoy.All that aside, yeah, it might have been a little easy to cause them. Bu I'm not to sure about that's entirely the case, let me direct you to this event here, S210147, I had to blast about 20 of their cars to bits, and the rest of the enemy cars were under heavy mortar fire, the enemy had a total KIA number of 35, now tell me, I'm going to have to do even more than that, you must be joking? Before you attack my post again, look at the numbers, !20! cars and !35! Dead gangers, that is more than half your average gang! No text, but you to show you how the last turn looked like
LoSboccacc Posted May 19, 2010, 8:06 am	having to burn everything to bit is quite a problem. also you'll have to make sure everyone is really dead because I've seen killed engine cars still shooting, while turtled. I suppose that we'll se a raise in price for flechette and shotguns! At least make destroyed cars leave some more scraps, so one can recoup operation costs. right now you get only tires and the standard chassis scraps, it would be nice if there would be a chance (mech skill based) of recovering scraps from destroyed weapons too. that would offset the costs of having to kill everything and everyone.
*Wolfsbane* Posted May 19, 2010, 8:16 am	FF - when I scout with two or three cars, I generally need blue text on every single enemy to get them to demo. I've had scouts 3 against 7 where we destroyed 6 of the cars totally, and the last still wouldn't demo without us wrecking the engine and injuring all the crew. So yeah - welcome to what virtually everyone else in the game has been used to up until now. If your scouts take too long you could always take fewer cars, you know.
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 8:39 am	Wolfsbane said: FF - when I scout with two or three cars, I generally need blue text on every single enemy to get them to demo.  I've had scouts 3 against 7 where we destroyed 6 of the cars totally, and the last still wouldn't demo without us wrecking the engine and injuring all the crew.  So yeah - welcome to what virtually everyone else in the game has been used to up until now. If your scouts take too long you could always take fewer cars, you know. Wolf, this is not entierly true, we did a couple of scouts in SS yesterday, it was our 4 against 6, we trashed/murdered 4 of them, and then the last 2 demoed before getting breached, its not only in bigger scouts, hell, I've only had that uber squad for a couple of days now, done a total of 4 scouts with it. That, and I rather enjoy the smaller SS scouts, mostly because there, I just don't care about not wrecking stuff, or weather my stuff gets wrecked, I call SS scouts relaxation time. (And currently, they don't take all that long, I got trough those 4 scouts I've done in an average of 1 hour)
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 19, 2010, 9:43 am	It is a change that is required, it may need tweaking and we know it will be modified. BUT it has been long coming that we needed better AI stress levels, having 60+% of a force surrender becuase they are scared gives for easy pickings for mega scouting, which remember is not the norm for the majority of members, we all know why we used to join mikes megas, it was for free loot and money when we were knew players, hence why mikes scouts attract new players not older members ( no offence mike ). so rather than screaming unfair, can you at least just post your findings for sam to see and others to discuss, its every bodies game remember
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 10:11 am	Might I remind you the commitment it takes to do megas in the first place gro...? First, the equipment costs, now, my squad is the extreme example, with Tankers, MH's, Lorries Fire/Trashtrucks, It's really way to expensive for its own good, but its as good as it gets really, now, if we are to value all the gear put into this, with weapons, it would come to abuout... TT/Tanker = 500k - 8 Motorhome = 400k - 4 Firetruck = 6-9M - 1 Lorry - 200k - 2 Osprey = 200k - 2 Heavy Laser - 7-9M - 1 Laser - 1M - 1 Tank Guns = 1M - 8 Mounted Mortar = 1M - 14 Car cannon = 100-150k - (About) 50 Anti tank guns = 70k - 15 And some Unimportant weapons... And this comes to about... somewhere between 55 - 70 mil worth of gear on the open market, not counting engines... Now dont get me wrong, This is not to brag, I speny many millions building this squad, given, but thats not the major issue, the major issue is that I spent several MONTHS building up to this, it has been my goal in this game since I did my first solo scouts, you can go ask TEC or slacker, I used to never shut up about it, as you said yourself before Gro, building my own little "army". Now, after spending all those months, not counting the first two, thats 8 subscribed months , scouting, training my ganger's, slowly building up, and now, after all that time spent in the game, I can finally say, I have the largest solo-scouting squad in the game. Now, a couple of days after I finally get it up and running, that ultimate goal of mine, you get to hear that this way of scouting just got completely nerfed, that this way of scouting is "unfair"? How in the world is it unfair that the enemy demos after I kill Half their whole gang within 15 turns? After all that money and time spent to build the damned squad, it is nothing but fair, I am simply getting back for all the time I spent, thats how I feel about it, care to argue against that gro?
LoSboccacc Posted May 19, 2010, 10:20 am	well you do have a point, but the whole game is right now geared to combat rating matching so this change just makes sense in that light. there should be some other kind of reward for big scout, like tons of scraps or higher bounties or something - but until the game pops gangers and cars out of nothing for npc to balance your forces, going big will never provide you any kind of benefit. and it's not like mike megas were that profitable all by themselves, if we were to take mike words for it. a quick search on the forums gives out that he makes 50k a pop. the 5mil worth lorry he got busted some day ago will eat up all the proceedings of the next *one thousand* scouts.
*sam* Posted May 19, 2010, 10:27 am	FF- linear addition to stress when guys in your team get injured wasn't correct - it can't be. It takes no account for safety in numbers. That's why the cascading demos were out of whack. And yes, taking advantage of this was somewhat of an exploit, IMO. I have however just tweaked the calcs a bit so that the 'safety in numbers' factor is less. BTW this only applies to certain types of stress, when guys in a different car get injured/killed. There wasn't any change made when damage is actually happening to the car that a character is himself in.
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 10:36 am	But that is my main point, the old system actually made sense in a way... If we are taking 1 turn to loosely be 1 second, and within 15 turns, I've killed 30-40% of their force, not demoralized, Killed, redded, muredered, blasted to bits, how can the "Safety in numbers" effect still go on, since they clearly aren't safe in numbers? Ask yourself this, if you were in a battle, and you outnumber the enemy 2-1, yet just 15 seconds into the battle, 30-40% of your force is killed of, would you continue to fight? Either way... if the enemy will keep on fighting until you breach almost every single one of them, then hell, I'll make sure to kill every single one of them, but when I do, can you remove the gang from the game or something, because I'll make damned sure there will not be anything left...
*Wolfsbane* Posted May 19, 2010, 10:49 am	Why does it make sense for big scouts but not for small ones? I would have thought that wiping out half the AI should have a similar effect no matter how many of them there are. Why do you think you should get a big pile of free stuff just because you're a rich player?
LoSboccacc Posted May 19, 2010, 10:54 am	Wolfsbane said: Why do you think you should get a big pile of free stuff just because you're a rich player? because under the assumption of having each encounter balanced to your force you'll need a reward proportional to your investment. a close quarter 4vs4 combat net you almost 4 pristine car in SS, while the fact that they get spread out and outnumber you and demoed continues to fight until their car is molten metal is currently reducing too much the profitability of high investments
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 10:57 am	Quote: Why does it make sense for big scouts but not for small ones?"  I would have thought that wiping out half the AI should have a similar effect no matter how many of them there are. Now now, thats pretty basic psycology actually, ever heard the saying, "The bigger the are, the harder they fall? Quote: Why do you think you should get a big pile of free stuff just because you're a rich player? Free stuff, can I reefer to that other post I made about how I made many great, pretty huge "Advance payments"? LoSboccacc said: - Thank you for seeing the bigger picture here, in smaller scouts, you can fire on a car until it demoed, then move on to the remaining weakened cars, you usually have enough armor in a dogfight to let those 2 demoed cars live until you take the other 2 down, its not hard to do. When up against 35 cars however, not a flying chance in hell, whatever car is closest to you, and pointing your way, you either kill it, or you lose armor quickly, those are the only two options you get, you cant ease fire on targets if you want you squad to live for long. These demo cascades... they are the sole reason mega's can even collect a good amount of loot...
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 19, 2010, 11:07 am	Im sorry FF this again just seems like you bleating, and i agree with Sam it just smells of ' exploit' not the hidden kind, but one that many people join in on, but all the same something that needed to be addressed.
*Tinker* Posted May 19, 2010, 11:31 am	*sam* said: edit: I might get a few NPCs hooked on zerk, too.  Hehe S210807 against FLMHs it works, too bad we don't get the "growl" from vehicles had 2 gangsters, each in different cars shooting me from 200+ meters was kinda worried they had uber gunners but they all missed Also a beaster turned and escaped edit: looking at the kill roster i found none that had addiction also their skills seemed to be a bit more randomly spread, but not by much
Karz Master Posted May 19, 2010, 11:35 am	I had a few flamer cars try to flame me from 150m away. Was hilarious as I laughed at their futile attempts.
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 11:43 am	*Grograt* said: Im sorry FF this again just seems like you bleating, and i agree with Sam it just smells of ' exploit' not the hidden kind, but one that many people join in on, but all the same something that needed to be addressed. Alright then, you clever person, suggest how we make the mega scouter's have profits, I think I already made it pretty clear that the demo cascades are pretty much the sole reason.
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 19, 2010, 11:46 am	why do you need a profit, you just stated your kit is worth 70 million. When others scout Badlands and Texan is it for profit, or just challenge and the chance of rare loot. you want your cake and you want to eat it as well. Also have you not read that Sam has changed this already and will change it again if it is still a major problem !!!!
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 11:51 am	I frankly don't give a damned about how much all of that is worth, all I give a darned about is that I can have fun using it, and make it worth its money. So, don't avoid the question Gro, how do we remove the demo cascades, and yet keep the ability for the megascouters to go with profits and give them the ability to earn back what they spent on their groups to begin with? Whats the point of having a cake and then not eat it, that's why you make cakes.
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 19, 2010, 11:54 am	*sam* said: FF- linear addition to stress when guys in your team get injured wasn't correct - it can't be. It takes no account for safety in numbers. That's why the cascading demos were out of whack. And yes, taking advantage of this was somewhat of an exploit, IMO. I have however just tweaked the calcs a bit so that the 'safety in numbers' factor is less. BTW this only applies to certain types of stress, when guys in a different car get injured/killed. There wasn't any change made when damage is actually happening to the car that a character is himself in. *Grograt* said: Also have you not read that Sam has changed this already and will change it again if it is still a major problem !!!! Firefly....to be honest you are not reading but reacting again ... Sam will fix it, if it is a problem, if it is a problem to everyone, not a problem for one.
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 12:03 pm	Yes, I am reading what you are saying perfectly clear, and what you are saying is that it would be "tweaked" if it is a major problem for "The masses" well, the masses certainly don't do megas outside of SS.
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 19, 2010, 12:16 pm
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 12:19 pm	But you still avoided my question gro, how do we give the megasquads a fair chance at profits, or ability to loot?
*Wolfsbane* Posted May 19, 2010, 12:42 pm	Define fair. If you use twice as many cars do you expect twice as much profit? More? If you loot a single lorry or a CC that's as much profit as bringing home 5 or 6 mostly undamaged cars in SS. The profit of my last half dozen scouts in Tex has been negative, because I haven't seen anything worth looting. I'm happy with it, because the scouts are fun, training is good and I can hope to grab a moray or a cutlass sooner or later. But is it fair?
*sam* Posted May 19, 2010, 12:56 pm	Firefly said: suggest how we make the mega scouter's have profits This change has not made mega-scouting inherently any less profitable than regular scouting. In fact the 'safety in numbers' calculation is now non-linear so mega scouting still has a better chance of recovering pristine loot than regular scouting does. Firefly said: how do we remove the demo cascades ... They haven't been removed, they have been scaled back so that they're not so easily exploited.
JS Posted May 19, 2010, 1:30 pm	*SirLatte* said: well typically I use 3 RGM buzzers with A armor... to pay for the cost of ammo and armor I need to bring in 100k in loot to start to be profitable. I have used the cascade method just like everyone else and it helps to keep the loot coming in. The problem I am seeing is with the ones that demo keep fighting. Would love to see demo cars run or attempt to run. Absolutely agree.  The group I primarily scout with has built up over 5 months the ability to do megas.  We can field 6000cr in a coulple places between 3-4 of us.  Like FF, this has been a significant investment in time and effort.  These scouts are a lot of fun, which is the main goal.  Secondary is the profit.  I like the idea of the cascades, if they need to be scaled back, then that's fine.  But if we have to fight to the bitter end, and against demoed cars, then I don't agree with that.  Would also like to see demoed cars not charge in and fight.  The last 3 of my 2 Buzzer solos in BL have been fought to the bitter end.  After redding 80-90 percent of the enemy, the last car either fought, or ran while getting hammered, and never quit.  Might have been exceptionally brave guys in all three, but it has happened 3 times now.  Glad one was gates, because I used nearly all my ammo.
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 2:31 pm	*sam* said: Firefly said: suggest how we make the mega scouter's have profits This change has not made mega-scouting inherently any less profitable than regular scouting. In fact the 'safety in numbers' calculation is now non-linear so mega scouting still has a better chance of recovering pristine loot than regular scouting does. No... I can see why you would think that, but thats simply not how it is, let me try to explain it simply... In a 2 vs 3, or even 5 vs 7 battle, you can engage the enemy in dogfights, even then, for as long as you can make sure the enemy demoes, you can move on to other targets, in hope that your armor will hold up... In my fights, 17 vs 30 - 40, I don't get that luxury, even if a car demoes, if it is close to me, I have no choice than to blow it away, with this many enemy cars, I don't even have room to play with flanking, or even the luxury to play it conservative, all I really can do is bombard the rear cars with mortars, while swatting away the lead cars, if a car gets blown aside, then I have to target the new lead cars, and it goes on like that. *Sam* said: Firefly said: how do we remove the demo cascades ... They haven't been removed, they have been scaled back so that they're not so easily exploited. That picture I put up on the other page, when I had to kill 30 or so characters and breach most of their cars before the rest of the gang surrendered... if it goes on longer than that, the cascade is effectively gone anyway, not much of a cascade when only 5/35 cars do it.
*Ninesticks* Posted May 19, 2010, 2:45 pm	I won't bother quoting what you just said FF, but perhaps you may wish to go back an re-read what you just said and consider how you come across in that last post.
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 3:15 pm	Just a quick post to say I like the initial description of the update. I'm glad there are certain events (serious injury, etc.) that will have an event-long effect on allied ganger stress levels.
*Ninesticks* Posted May 19, 2010, 4:17 pm	And as usual Sam is ever minded, as should we be, that not every change is a complete success from the outset and that they sometimes require a period of adjustment. As regards the rest of it... You complain that you cannot make a profit but then say you are not scouting for profit. You complain about the time it takes, yet you decide to megascout (which are notoriously long winded). You complain that you should be able to play megascouts because it has taken you some time to get all the equipment together. Is that really any sort of valid argument? And in general you just complain. You complain about people having a pop at you in the forums and then you say things like 'No... I can see why you would think that, but thats simply not how it is, let me try to explain it simply... ' Incredibly condescending and really quite insulting. Are you the only person who plays this game and has any idea what is going at all? Is that it? Or perhaps you understand the behind the scenes code better than Sam?
simonmaxhill Posted May 19, 2010, 4:29 pm	Probably you just need to experiment with new tactics during your megas, and then you'll get your profits up a bit.
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 4:31 pm	Its so very easy to say that, now, why don't you try it, your to take down 35 enemy vehicles with 17 - 20 of your own, you cant concentrate fire, and you have to keep the loot alive. Any plans forming?
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 4:34 pm	The way to fend off 35 cars is to understand you aren't getting 35 loot cars out of it. Everything else is spontaneous creativity. The NPC/PC ratio is more or less fixed, regardless of how many vehicles you take out. You have to kill between 1.5 and 2.5 vehicles for every vehicle you scout with.
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 4:41 pm	Mmmmh... are we witnessing the front end of a 4 page flame war? Stay tuned to find out!
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 4:43 pm	Groove Champion said: The NPC/PC ratio is more or less fixed, regardless of how many vehicles you take out. You have to kill between 1.5 and 2.5 vehicles for every vehicle you scout with. Bull, one of the 2 SS scouts I did it was our 7 against their 8, we brought home 6 lootcars, only 1 was juryrigged, rest were pretty intact, and I purposely went for kills on the 2 that got blown. *Ninesticks* said: Incredibly condescending and really quite insulting. Are you the only person who plays this game and has any idea what is going at all? Is that it? Or perhaps you understand the behind the scenes code better than Sam? Well actually, how many people here really have experience of running megascouts? I'm pretty sure you have, but how about the rest of you? True, I don't know the code better than sam, but I sure as heck have never seen him lead a squad of 20 cars, or even do those kinds of scouts for that matter.
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 19, 2010, 4:49 pm	I dont understand why this is continuing, Sam has stated it will change, it already has changed / rolled back slightly, if it needs more reversal because members consider it not working ( i say members not member ) then off course it will change. So why all the angst.
*goat starer* Posted May 19, 2010, 4:50 pm	FF... dont use SS as an example of NPC odds.. its intended for new people. this change has always been needed... clearly the last car should surrender when all his mates are dead but not the last 10 you want to play a different game than everyone else ... again ... now dont go whinging to Sam about being picked on in the forums and THE VERY NEXT DAY post the same self serving nonsense that makes people dislike you in the first place. It make you look absolutely ridiculous!
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 4:50 pm	FireFly said: Groove Champion said: The NPC/PC ratio is more or less fixed, regardless of how many vehicles you take out. You have to kill between 1.5 and 2.5 vehicles for every vehicle you scout with. Bull, one of the 2 SS scouts I did it was our 7 against their 8, we brought home 6 lootcars, only 1 was juryrigged, rest were pretty intact, and I purposely went for kills on the 2 that got blown. I assumed we were discussing the ratios outside SS, SS being a notable exception to the normal car ratio. That means, of course, that if you have run a mega scout at the same time in SS, you probably would have run into a number of enemies relatively close to the number of vehicles you took out. FireFly said: *Ninesticks* said: Incredibly condescending and really quite insulting. Are you the only person who plays this game and has any idea what is going at all? Is that it? Or perhaps you understand the behind the scenes code better than Sam? Well actually, how many people here really have experience of running megascouts? I'm pretty sure you have, but how about the rest of you? True, I don't know the code better than sam, but I sure as heck have never seen him lead a squad of 20 cars, or even do those kinds of scouts for that matter. You're wondering how many of us have taken part in an outbound scout involving 20+ vehicles? The number of players with that sort of experience if very high. We know what we're talking about here, you pompous little freak.
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 4:52 pm	goat starer said: now dont go whinging to Sam about being picked on in the forums and THE VERY NEXT DAY post the same self serving nonsense that makes people dislike you in the first place. This. Can anyone possibly disagree with the above comment?!?
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 5:02 pm	Groove Champion said: FireFly said: Groove Champion said: The NPC/PC ratio is more or less fixed, regardless of how many vehicles you take out. You have to kill between 1.5 and 2.5 vehicles for every vehicle you scout with. Bull, one of the 2 SS scouts I did it was our 7 against their 8, we brought home 6 lootcars, only 1 was juryrigged, rest were pretty intact, and I purposely went for kills on the 2 that got blown. I assumed we were discussing the ratios outside SS, SS being a notable exception to the normal car ratio. That means, of course, that if you have run a mega scout at the same time in SS, you probably would have run into a number of enemies relatively close to the number of vehicles you took out. Oh no, it would definitely be 35, actually, the AI cant even match my CR as it stands, since 35 is the maximum number of cars the AI will field, It's nice to know that you know so much groove.
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 5:06 pm	You're absolutely right, FF. Sam: Please hand over the keys to FF immediately.
*goat starer* Posted May 19, 2010, 5:08 pm	and can the last person to leave please turn out the lights
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 5:14 pm	Quote: you pompous little freak. Oh! I'd written that already? It deserves to be repeated.
Joel Autobaun Posted May 19, 2010, 5:30 pm	*SirLatte* said: well typically I use 3 RGM buzzers with A armor... to pay for the cost of ammo and armor I need to bring in 100k in loot to start to be profitable. I have used the cascade method just like everyone else and it helps to keep the loot coming in. The problem I am seeing is with the ones that demo keep fighting. Would love to see demo cars run or attempt to run. Personally i'm impressed you were profitable using 3 RGM.  I use just one RGM for "fun" and it's always losing me money.  But...it's fun...now and then.
*jimmylogan* Posted May 19, 2010, 5:53 pm	Groove Champion said: Oh! I'd written that already? It deserves to be repeated. Actually it does NOT need to be repeated. Attack a point all you want, but please don't call names...
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 6:01 pm	I disagree. But you're a good guy, so I'll attempt to use in-game terms to describe my sentiment. Here we are dealing with a player who has logged in more play hours since he got here than the entire comunity put together. I can understand how he might think that makes him an omniscient DW god, but it's quite far from the truth. Repeatedly taking part in game events for hours on end is a grind that generally follows a well-known strategic pattern. This is not only a result of habit but also fatigue. In a nutshell, playing more doesn't necessarily mean you play better -or more creatively- than other players who have logged in less play time in more reasonable increments (less than 24 straight hours, for example). If we were seeing ground-breaking play on the part of said-player, I'd be ill-placed to argue his views, but since that is not the case -judging from past in-game encounters in town and in the wild, descriptions made in the forum of play patterns- it's absolutely impossible for me to accept his opinions without pointing out the gargantuan holes in his arguments and statements. Add to that the offending player's oft-displayed talent for belittling and dismissing the massive experience pool of all other DW players and you get this thread.
*jimmylogan* Posted May 19, 2010, 6:09 pm	All very valid points to make. Groove Champion said: it's absolutely impossible for me to accept his opinions without pointing out the gargantuan holes in his arguments and statements. And there's nothing in the world wrong with that. That is debating a point and expressing an opinion about something game related. Calling someone a name does NOTHING to promote a point of view about a game mechanic, setting, etc. Thanks,
*goat starer* Posted May 19, 2010, 6:15 pm	it may not... but at least it is accurate and honest
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 6:24 pm	Well groove, I don't know were you get those statistics from, but looking trough my event logs, I did an average of 4 - 5 events per day, that's hardly playing "All day".
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 6:26 pm	Then you don't have the all-encompassing game experience you pretend to have?
*goat starer* Posted May 19, 2010, 6:27 pm	lmao... 4-5 EVENTS A DAY??? the shortest are about 30 mins.. the longest are a couple of hours... that is playing ALL day that is HAVING NO LIFE!! that is behaviour that would be incomprehensible in someone who was escaping a tedious marriage ... let alone a child who should be out climbing trees and having things like friends... do you know ANY real people???
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 6:32 pm	Firelight Solo events... 10 minutes average... SS solo events... 10 minute average... SS group events 20 - 40 min average Solo Megascouts 1h average... No, that's 3 or so hours per day.
Karz Master Posted May 19, 2010, 6:33 pm	JS said: But if we have to fight to the bitter end, and against demoed cars, then I don't agree with that.  Would also like to see demoed cars not charge in and fight.  I think the demoed cars' behaviours need to be tweaked to be less linear. They should better evaluate the need to fight, or run. For example, if half the vehicles in the enemy squad are down, and your squad's still strong and healthy, the demoed vehicles should be escaping, while the non-demoed ones should be helping the demoed ones to escape. Or something like that. Right now they're just offering to throw themselves into a bloody mess of gibs and gore and broken car parts.
Kornkob The Dude Posted May 19, 2010, 6:34 pm	Attacking the person instead of the position is a logical fallacy and has no place is reasonable discourse.
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 6:40 pm	I agree with you Karz (better situational awarness on the NPC's part) though I feel the current stubborn behavior should be ingrained in high-fame gangs: wouldn't their fame be a reflection of their will to fight to the bitter end? On the other hand, low-fame gangs should be yellow-bellied pushovers; especially after the skill values were recently tied in with the gang's fame value.
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 19, 2010, 6:52 pm	LETS try and keep this on topic please
*goat starer* Posted May 19, 2010, 6:52 pm	FireFly said: Firelight Solo events... Solo Megascouts 1h average... No, that's 3 or so hours per day. you live in a complete fantasy world
FireFly Posted May 19, 2010, 6:58 pm	goat starer said: FireFly said: Firelight Solo events... Solo Megascouts 1h average... No, that's 3 or so hours per day. you live in a complete fantasy world Excuse me, do you watch my scouts? 20-30 turns doesn't take very long
*goat starer* Posted May 19, 2010, 7:04 pm	bless
Studman Posted May 19, 2010, 7:17 pm	This has been one of the biggest problems with darkwind. Firefly your arrogance is astounding, its a video game try to remember that. Your complaining that you can't turn a guaranteed profit in the "harder" scouting areas. Those areas should be about high risk in the chance of looting the rare/valuable chassis. This was and has always been an exploit, just a plainly visible one related to PvE in favor of the player, so it doesn't get whined about. Mad Mike has been abusing this exploit forever but at least he invited new players and spread around the massive profits. After tracking a looting on one of his scouts I was on there was 300k worth of loot and almost 200 for mike. He has claimed to make well over a million a week only doing a few scouts. When you choose to abuse the same exploit and your history of being an arrogant and obnoxious player lead to people finally saying ok this is broken. The way the system worked was clearly broken, If the battles could scale even higher you could have cases where 20 cars of 100 are destroyed and everyone demos. Linearly scaling it was not the correct model. Speaking of which its time to fix this other known exploit: NPCS can only bring about 35 cars to each scout! This allows human players to bring tons of very high CR cars and out combat rating the other team in areas where that should not happen.
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 7:24 pm	I............... agree?........ with Studman?
*goat starer* Posted May 19, 2010, 7:43 pm	yep me too... our resident shark may be anti social... but he aint thick
*Ninesticks* Posted May 19, 2010, 8:02 pm	Kurz said: I think the demoed cars' behaviours need to be tweaked to be less linear. They should better evaluate the need to fight, or run. For example, if half the vehicles in the enemy squad are down, and your squad's still strong and healthy, the demoed vehicles should be escaping, while the non-demoed ones should be helping the demoed ones to escape. Or something like that. Right now they're just offering to throw themselves into a bloody mess of gibs and gore and broken car parts. Well that could well be worth revisiting however it has kind of been tried before. Unfortunately it ended up with a lot of complaining as people had to chase down the runners (though interestingly it did make it worthwhile having a mix of cars on a scout). I am sure suggestions about improving the AI behaviour will always be well received by Sam.
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 8:10 pm	I remember escaping cars not moving at full speed though: that drew out events by keeping escaping vehicles out of firing range but outside escape range. If the AI could be coded to floor the accelerator when attempting to escape instead of inching forward listlessly, the problem we encountered previously might be removed?
Karz Master Posted May 19, 2010, 8:11 pm	*Ninesticks* said: I am sure suggestions about improving the AI behaviour will always be well received by Sam. Shh. Do you really want SkynetDarkwind's AI to be self-aware by 2012?
simonmaxhill Posted May 19, 2010, 8:11 pm	Since this thread has turned into something of a referendum on mega scouts, I will suggest this (have I suggested it before?) A gigantic convoy of vehicles is near impossible to conceal. Therefore, mega scouts should almost always be ambushed.
Studman Posted May 19, 2010, 8:12 pm	or a pop up for the squad leader (npc car x is trying to escape allow it?) that would take it out of the event. then make it an option to turn on/off those prompts in the squad page?
Groove Champion Posted May 19, 2010, 8:13 pm	Studman said: or a pop up for the squad leader (npc car x is trying to escape allow it?) that would take it out of the event. Good call.
*Ninesticks* Posted May 19, 2010, 8:13 pm	I think that may have been to do with the old 'patrol' type behaviour (maintaining force coherence behaviour) you would see with the AI once it was beyond a certain distance where it would slow down to 20-30mph and bimble about. Not sure if that is still in effect as I don't tend to run my cars a long way now before picking a spot to fight from.
Karz Master Posted May 19, 2010, 8:20 pm	Studman said: or a pop up for the squad leader (npc car x is trying to escape allow it?) that would take it out of the event. then make it an option to turn on/off those prompts in the squad page? I suggested this before, but everyone - and I stress everyone - in that thread was against it. Sad. But yes, sometimes scouts are unnecessarily longer than they should be for that reason.
Studman Posted May 19, 2010, 8:21 pm	Karz Master said: Studman said: or a pop up for the squad leader (npc car x is trying to escape allow it?) that would take it out of the event. then make it an option to turn on/off those prompts in the squad page? I suggested this before, but everyone - and I stress everyone - in that thread was against it. Sad. But yes, sometimes scouts are unnecessarily longer than they should be for that reason. Welcome to the darkwind community
Karz Master Posted May 19, 2010, 8:26 pm	*Ninesticks* said: I think that may have been to do with the old 'patrol' type behaviour (maintaining force coherence behaviour) you would see with the AI once it was beyond a certain distance where it would slow down to 20-30mph and bimble about. Not sure if that is still in effect as I don't tend to run my cars a long way now before picking a spot to fight from. Yeah some time ago they used to climb a mountain and just stay there. It was really annoying especially if you couldn't climb said mountain. You could have redded every other car, and if they had high courage, they'd still stay there and annoy the heck out of you until you spend 10 minutes trying to get your car to a very specific location to shoot them down before they finally demo. Or, just set the game to auto-end turn until their stress eventually hit the threshold, but that takes an ass of a long time and does not add any value to the gameplay at all. I haven't seen that phenomenon lately, so I guess the AI's wisened up, but I have seen AI running around in circles instead of outrightly escaping - sometimes when I purposely let them run off, they'd even do a 180 and turn around in my direction, as if to say "nyah nyah can't catch me, now I'm gonna make your scout last 10 mins longer". Really grating.
JS Posted May 19, 2010, 8:32 pm	*Ninesticks* said: I think that may have been to do with the old 'patrol' type behaviour (maintaining force coherence behaviour) you would see with the AI once it was beyond a certain distance where it would slow down to 20-30mph and bimble about. Not sure if that is still in effect as I don't tend to run my cars a long way now before picking a spot to fight from. they still do this a bit.  I've seen them regroup if I get them strung too much.  Not 100% but happens, there is an art to keeping them coming while stringing them enough you don't have 4 of them hammering one yours.
JS Posted May 19, 2010, 8:38 pm	simonmaxhill said: Since this thread has turned into something of a referendum on mega scouts, I will suggest this (have I suggested it before?) A gigantic convoy of vehicles is near impossible to conceal.  Therefore, mega scouts should almost always be ambushed. Isn't that a mega ambush, and by your logic, the ambush should be difficult to conceal/execute.  Large formations are usually not ambushed historically speaking, because they are too large to effectively do so as an ambush requires giving away concentration of force for suprise, which is fleeting. That aside, I just got done with a 5000+ CR trader hunt in GW.  Took over 3 hours.  We killed nearly every single person in the guard vehicles.  Had to blue some of the traders as well.  Were firing 2 TGs and 8 Mortars into them for too many turns to count.  Might have dialed it back a bit too much I think.  If the idea is to kill the mega (then why a 20 car limit?) then mission nearly accomplished.  I know I will not be doing any for a while until this gets sorted, or not if it stays the same, which is a shame because I enjoyed the heck out of it.
Kornkob The Dude Posted May 19, 2010, 8:50 pm	JS-- I have to disagree. When an attacking force is outnumbered or outgunned (as the AI seems to be for every mega I've been on) by a convoy there is really only one logical option: a series of complex ambushes. I think megas should be ambushed and the AI should hit and run (unless they start dominating the mega by some miracle). Then there should pretty much certainly be a return and the same should happen again. (oh-- and really we should break out the 'mega scout balanacing' discussion from the 'stress discussion' since the mega scout balance is a complex issue that ranges far beyond mere stress behavior)
Flether Posted May 19, 2010, 9:52 pm	I made an attempt to read everything said in order to give the best response possible, but I got immensely tired of the bitching/counter-bitching. So sorry if any of this has been said previously or changed since the first 3 pages. While I see the logic in making it a non-linear system, I disagree with everyone turning target on FF and totally smacking him. The cascade effect is used by just about everyone who's ever done a scout, and one generally counts on it to not have to blast absolutely everything into tiny tiny tiny little bits, on any scout that has more enemies than friendlies. And in to response that the same thing should happen in smaller scouts (where half of a force is wiped out fast), the psychology of that (imo) would be so that a smaller battle is more vicious, and much much more personal, and thereby more of a fight to the death. The bigger they are, the harder they fall indeed. Either way, until I see another mega-scout happen, and get the chance to see just how much difference it makes, I personally find the mass-demo effect to be quite realistic and a function of reality that's only logical to use. And to any people who go "Where's your PHD in psychology" or something equally witty, I don't have one, but I do have a reasonable amount of knowledge from my interest in behavioral sciences and the paper I'm currently writing.
*goat starer* Posted May 19, 2010, 10:04 pm	truth is people dont generally surrender unless they face ovewhealming odds... or dont have a reason to fight... that history not psychology.
*Ninesticks* Posted May 19, 2010, 10:06 pm	Ermm well regarding the response FF gets I would say 'It is not always what you say it is the way you say it'. Add in all the other ingredients that FF seems to bring from time to time and you will get a negative response from those who cannot/will not sit on their hands when irritated. Even with the best of efforts, I don't see this changing until one, or hopefully all parties do things differently. As things were, the stress system was unbalanced towards larger scouts. All that happens now is that people who go on larger scouts have to do the same as people who go on smaller scouts. I fail to understand why this should strike people as unfair. Is it really unfair that people would have to actually shoot and damage a car to loot it? The earlier comment about having to blue text a trader to get them to demo as a sign of how bad this change was - made me laugh - a lot. Reality arguments whilst informative are by no means decisive.
*Tinker* Posted May 19, 2010, 10:28 pm	I remember a scout in BL, we had something like 4 buzzers and a few apaches in our squad, we ran a bit out of sight of the npc and turned to absolutely red the first few cars with HFTs and CC, the next wave came in and it was a regular battle, by the time they demoed the last of the stragglers raced in and as soon as they turned and saw the carnage the 2 or 3 of them just gave up, it felts so realistic Again this was not some major mega, and there was no mortars, but seing them demoe like that was very gratifying and fun just wanted to say that but the non-linear aspect of moral loss is good, but probably suited to clustered groups, not for a large number of NPCs that get split and murdered, but i "guessing" what i'm describing won't change much will have to see
Studman Posted May 19, 2010, 10:40 pm	Flether said: And to any people who go "Where's your PHD in psychology" or something equally witty, I don't have one, but I do have a reasonable amount of knowledge from my interest in behavioral sciences and the paper I'm currently writing. *Holds up his PHD in calling people out on their bull* No one is going to surrender their car in an environment where they are being constantly shot at (communication would be difficult and the fear of just being shot) and the result could be death/slavery/eaten by giant animals. Historically this is backed up by the fact that in small scale armed conflict a surrender on the scale of the large scouts (half or more) does not happen, unless another squad is taken completely by surprise and held at gunpoint, or there is very civil treatment of prisoners of war. In large scale combat mass surrender is almost NEVER seen. Instead you get an organized or disorganized retreat. Surrender instead happens in long wars of attrition such as the American Civil war battles or the siege of a castle/fortress, where the results are inevitable or the price of victory is calculated and deemed not worth it. Instead what you are doing is using your wrong opinion of what you think is realism to argue for a broken game mechanic. I would actually argue that realistically no one in a drivable car would ever get out of it and submit themselves to the other group, instead they would flee for their life and perhaps escape in the confusion. In fact " NPC wants to escape" should mean just that. Really though none of this is any more immersion breaking that Radar Guided Missiles and lasers in a pos apoc world where people can light things on fire with their mind!! So realism arguments dont hold any weight.
JS Posted May 19, 2010, 11:11 pm	Studman said: Flether said: And to any people who go "Where's your PHD in psychology" or something equally witty, I don't have one, but I do have a reasonable amount of knowledge from my interest in behavioral sciences and the paper I'm currently writing. *Holds up his PHD in calling people out on their bull* No one is going to surrender their car in an environment where they are being constantly shot at (communication would be difficult and the fear of just being shot) and the result could be death/slavery/eaten by giant animals. Historically this is backed up by the fact that in small scale armed conflict a surrender on the scale of the large scouts (half or more) does not happen, unless another squad is taken completely by surprise and held at gunpoint, or there is very civil treatment of prisoners of war. In large scale combat mass surrender is almost NEVER seen. Instead you get an organized or disorganized retreat. Surrender instead happens in long wars of attrition such as the American Civil war battles or the siege of a castle/fortress, where the results are inevitable or the price of victory is calculated and deemed not worth it. Instead what you are doing is using your wrong opinion of what you think is realism to argue for a broken game mechanic. I would actually argue that realistically no one in a drivable car would ever get out of it and submit themselves to the other group, instead they would flee for their life and perhaps escape in the confusion. In fact " NPC wants to escape" should mean just that. Really though none of this is any more immersion breaking that Radar Guided Missiles and lasers in a pos apoc world where people can light things on fire with their mind!! So realism arguments dont hold any weight. You are historically and factually completely wrong.  In fact, surrender was the norm through history.  It was only until highly organized armies of mass attrition that organized retreats and more imortantly standing and fighting to the last was somewhat common.  Although this is still not the norm.  Self preservation is a powerful force, and most will do almost anyting to preserve their life.  to include in this ccase getting out of a car and abandoning it, even as they know there are ginat insects.  The guns of the enemy will kill them sooner.  The game does not model the negotiations that would happen here.  But the end of the battle and the loot phase are our simulations.  The point is that at some point a force becomes combat ineffective, whether by retreating, surendering, melting away or just simply being over run and quitting in penny packets.  The historical number for a combat ineffective unit is 50%.  Virtually no force maintains the fight affter losing m]50% or more.  There are of course exceptions, but these prove the rule.  As it stands, the NPCs are much stronger than even that.
JS Posted May 19, 2010, 11:15 pm	"When an attacking force is outnumbered or outgunned (as the AI seems to be for every mega I've been on) by a convoy there is really only one logical option: a series of complex ambushes. " Kornkob - True, that is a point well taken, ambushes rarely turn into a set piece, they are hit and run. That would be very hard to simulate. An ambush will continue to a decisive battle if one side can gain a great advantage and the other cannot disengage.
Studman Posted May 19, 2010, 11:28 pm	Quote: You are historically and factually completely wrong.  In fact, surrender was the norm through history.  It was only until highly organized armies of mass attrition that organized retreats and more imortantly standing and fighting to the last was somewhat common.  Although this is still not the norm.  Self preservation is a powerful force, and most will do almost anyting to preserve their life.  to include in this ccase getting out of a car and abandoning it, even as they know there are ginat insects.  The guns of the enemy will kill them sooner.  The game does not model the negotiations that would happen here.  But the end of the battle and the loot phase are our simulations.  The point is that at some point a force becomes combat ineffective, whether by retreating, surendering, melting away or just simply being over run and quitting in penny packets.  The historical number for a combat ineffective unit is 50%.  Virtually no force maintains the fight affter losing m]50% or more.  There are of course exceptions, but these prove the rule.  As it stands, the NPCs are much stronger than even that. Would you care to provide any examples, or do you want to keep spouting nonsense also if you really believe getting out of a functional car and surrendering to slavers is the response to self preservation instinct you do not have the requisite mental functioning for a debate.
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 19, 2010, 11:41 pm	LETS not get personal in this thread please.
*Tinker* Posted May 20, 2010, 12:01 am	yeah keep it civil or some editing of post will be in order (still working it out with sam about forum moderation)
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 12:10 am	He is welcome to get as uncivil as he wants as far as I'm concerned. His ad hominem attacks are a standard MO for him. The fact that slaves were taken throughout history from raids, battles, seiges, campaigns etc are all the examples that should be required. I'm glad he brought up taking slaves as it proves my point perfectly. Slaves are people who quit before getting killed. Well played what's your name, I could not have explained it better.
Studman Posted May 20, 2010, 12:23 am	JS said: He is welcome to get as uncivil as he wants as far as I'm concerned.  His ad hominem attacks are a standard MO for him. The fact that slaves were taken throughout history from raids, battles, seiges, campaigns etc are all the examples that should be required.  I'm glad he brought up taking slaves as it proves my point perfectly.  Slaves are people who quit before getting killed.  Well played what's your name, I could not have explained it better. You havn't brought any actual battles where there were surrenders in the heat of combat vs battles with retreating you are just spouting nonsense.
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 12:40 am	Studman said: JS said: He is welcome to get as uncivil as he wants as far as I'm concerned.  His ad hominem attacks are a standard MO for him. The fact that slaves were taken throughout history from raids, battles, seiges, campaigns etc are all the examples that should be required.  I'm glad he brought up taking slaves as it proves my point perfectly.  Slaves are people who quit before getting killed.  Well played what's your name, I could not have explained it better. You havn't brought any actual battles where there were surrenders in the heat of combat vs battles with retreating you are just spouting nonsense. Appomatox Yorktown Saratoga Battle of San Antonio Surrender of Montreal Siege of Kut Al Amara Argentines in the Falklands Corrigidor Stalingrad Second Battle of El Alamein Nearly every battle between the Greek city states Virtually every battle ever waged between Stone/Bronze Age warriors Virtually every knightly contest and battle in the middle ages (They made an art of ransom and surrendering before getting too hurt) Fact of history, surrender is well more common than fighting to the bitter end.  Most times it does not even take that much of a loss to cause it.  In fact, it is shockingly easy to make a force surrender.  The Iraqi Air Force lost about 10% of their Air Force to the USAF/USN/Marines, and quit en mass running to Iran or burying their planes.  Too easy.
*Tinker* Posted May 20, 2010, 12:54 am	Hey guys this isn't the civilized WW I etc era, it's barbaric tribes hitting themselves with crapy weapons, if anyone should surender it should be the lower famed gangs, that's why their low fame lol
Studman Posted May 20, 2010, 12:56 am	JS said: Studman said: JS said: He is welcome to get as uncivil as he wants as far as I'm concerned.  His ad hominem attacks are a standard MO for him. The fact that slaves were taken throughout history from raids, battles, seiges, campaigns etc are all the examples that should be required.  I'm glad he brought up taking slaves as it proves my point perfectly.  Slaves are people who quit before getting killed.  Well played what's your name, I could not have explained it better. You havn't brought any actual battles where there were surrenders in the heat of combat vs battles with retreating you are just spouting nonsense. Appomatox Yorktown Saratoga Battle of San Antonio Surrender of Montreal Siege of Kut Al Amara Argentines in the Falklands Corrigidor Stalingrad Second Battle of El Alamein Nearly every battle between the Greek city states Virtually every battle ever waged between Stone/Bronze Age warriors Virtually every knightly contest and battle in the middle ages (They made an art of ransom and surrendering before getting too hurt) Fact of history, surrender is well more common than fighting to the bitter end.  Most times it does not even take that much of a loss to cause it.  In fact, it is shockingly easy to make a force surrender.  The Iraqi Air Force lost about 10% of their Air Force to the USAF/USN/Marines, and quit en mass running to Iran or burying their planes.  Too easy. These are almost all examples of formal surrender after the shooting stopped
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 1:09 am	You're almost there. When the enemy in DW surrenders, we stop shooting. That's how it works in DW and real life. After the enemy is disheartened from getting annhilated, they surrender. Remember that it was the shooting that made them surrender, not the stopping. Players do it as well, they resign or surrender to keep their gangers alive. I understand how you struggle to grasp this based on your play style. Thankfully, your "style" is rare, else we would have had many more casualites in history. The formalities ensue from there. Slavers take their prisoners to the pits. The civs give them a tea party. We used to have the option to kill them, etc. But make no mistake, they have surrendered, their equipment is forfeit et al.
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 1:19 am	*Tinker* said: Hey guys this isn't the civilized WW I etc era, it's barbaric tribes hitting themselves with crapy weapons, if anyone should surender it should be the lower famed gangs, that's why their low fame lol An excellent point Tinker, John Keegans "A History of Warfare" addresses this very point extensively.  He turns the common perceptions (especially of westerners) of warfare and it's role in mankinds history on its head.  A great read for anyone who fancies themselves a student of warfare.
Groove Champion Posted May 20, 2010, 1:56 am	Thanks for the suggestion
Oscoda Posted May 20, 2010, 3:26 am	FireFly said: Either you change how a demoed car works... or thank you lots for messing the game up completely for anyone who likes larger scouts, this wont make anything a bigger challenge, it will simply serve to annoy.All that aside, yeah, it might have been a little easy to cause them. Bu I'm not to sure about that's entirely the case, let me direct you to this event here, S210147, I had to blast about 20 of their cars to bits, and the rest of the enemy cars were under heavy mortar fire, the enemy had a total KIA number of 35, now tell me, I'm going to have to do even more than that, you must be joking? That event, you stood in a line with mortars in a group behind that line.  That encounter didn't tell me the demo rules are wrong, it told me the setup rules need to be changed. How do ten dump trucks and several other trucks 'ambush' a convoy while basically stopped? -The larger the encounter, the further away they start?  -By default any npc group is no larger than 10 cars?  that way a 35 car npc squad would be in at least 4 groups (in different spawn areas) that would have to be dealt with.  even within the limited starting area, pc squads form groups. -Have the CR ratio between the groups determine if they try to run right off the bat, or if some of them try to run while others fight.
Zoltan Posted May 20, 2010, 3:42 am	Yeah this demo thing needs tweaking. I had an event one car ran and got stuck on a hill. I killed most every character and all the other cars and it still wouldn't demo. Total bull####
Joel Autobaun Posted May 20, 2010, 3:54 am	I'm fine (small scouts). But I think it should be tweaked again as it would make getting bounties too easy.
simonmaxhill Posted May 20, 2010, 5:42 am	I just fought 8 cars and demo'd at least 4 of them with their primary lootable weapon intact, so the stress rules clearly aren't 100% broken.
FireFly Posted May 20, 2010, 9:29 am	Alright, I apologize to some of you for my rather... "Snappy" behavior yesterday, in short, I had a really bad day (RL), and my temper was short enough for petty insults to get to me, anyway, apology to anyone that isnt goat or groove I might have offended. Now that thats out of the way... I have to wonder... you see, I did my mega (S210891) yesterday... and I noticed no noticeable change, I did a smaller scout, and the effect was more noticeable there... I think something went wrong along the line here.
*Tinker* Posted May 20, 2010, 9:35 am	FireFly said: I think something went wrong along the line here. like what? just because you posted an event ID doesn't mean we have to take the time to look at it, some succinct info would be grand
FireFly Posted May 20, 2010, 9:41 am	What, no, tinker, you got me wrong, I meant I think this change isnt working as intended, or I've got it all completely wrong, all I did in that scout was using mortars (They demoed most of them) and tank guns to send enemy cars flying (Darkwind Golf) Off topic, its freaking hilarious to see what 7tg's and 6cc's can do to a car when they hit all at once, kinda reminds me of why I setup the mega in the first place... Again, was very depressed yesterday, so as nine said, I said most of the stuff the wrong way.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 10:40 am	JS... you really need to read some books on these battles... Appomatox - last battle (just about) of a war - this is a defeated ARMY surrendering when its leaders realise that they are fighting a vastly superior force trhan they had assumed.. its the end of a war not a single battle - and entirely irrelevant. Yorktown - 19,000 troops BESIGING 9000 troops - great example for what i said  Saratoga - THREE battles before the british surrender... despite being decisively beaten in the second... note that the Americans did NOT surrender when they lost the first... are youbTRYING to prove my point or just doing it by accident? Battle of San Antonio - i dont know this one but given your strike rate so far i dont hold out much hope for you! Surrender of Montreal - 42,000 people beat about 20,000 - again proviong my point Siege of Kut Al Amara - you are actually being funny now... there were 31,000 british troops in this battle (with about 10,000 commonwealth)... it was a siege wityh 41,000 turks on the other side... and the surrender came when 30,000 of them had been KILLED.... Argentines in the Falklands - conscripts surrender to professional army after being completely cut off from reinforcements and supplies... wow... suprising Corrigidor - in the orifinal battle... 11,000 troops surrendered to 75,000 (what dont you get here? how is that not overwhelming odds?) Stalingrad - LMAO - the russians lose over 1 MILLION people and still dont surrender... You are going great guns here!!! Second Battle of El Alamein -  germand surrnder after losing 500 of 545 tanks... and 30,000 men ... against a numerically superior force ... hardly a cascade. Nearly every battle between the Greek city states Virtually every battle ever waged between Stone/Bronze Age warriors Virtually every knightly contest and battle in the middle ages (They made an art of ransom and surrendering before getting too hurt) - these are pure speculation
Studman Posted May 20, 2010, 10:41 am	goat starer said: JS... you really need to read some books... Appomatox - last battle (just about) of a war - this is a defeated ARMY surrendering when its leaders realise that they are fighting a vastly superior force trhan they had assumed.. its the end of a war not a single battle - and entirely irrelevant. Yorktown - 19,000 troops BESIGING 9000 troops - great example for what i said  Saratoga - THREE battles before the british surrender... despite being decisively beaten in the second... note that the Americans did NOT surrender when they lost the first... are youbTRYING to prove my point or just doing it by accident? Battle of San Antonio - i dont know this one but given your strike rate so far i dont hold out much hope for you! Surrender of Montreal - 42,000 people beat about 20,000 - again proviong my point Siege of Kut Al Amara - you are actually being funny now... there were 31,000 british troops in this battle (with about 10,000 commonwealth)... it was a siege wityh 41,000 turks on the other side... and the surrender came when 30,000 of them had been KILLED.... Argentines in the Falklands - conscripts surrender to professional army after being completely cut off from reinforcements and supplies... wow... suprising Corrigidor - in the orifinal battle... 11,000 troops surrendered to 75,000 (what dont you get here? how is that overwhelming odds?) Stalingrad - LMAO - the russians lose over 1 MILLION people and still dont surrender... You are going great guns here!!! Second Battle of El Alamein -  germand surrnder after losing 500 of 545 tanks... and 30,000 men ... against a numerically superior force ... hardly a cascade. Nearly every battle between the Greek city states Virtually every battle ever waged between Stone/Bronze Age warriors Virtually every knightly contest and battle in the middle ages (They made an art of ransom and surrendering before getting too hurt) - these are pure speculation I'm glad someone with a better knowledge of history tore that argument apart. Surrender in the middle of battle is EXTREMELY rare. Organized or disorganized retreat is the response to survival instinct.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 10:47 am	spot on stud... its REALLY hard to surender in a battle... how do you tell the opposition? how do you do it in a coordinated way? do you stop firing and risk being shot to pieces? How do you make the decision? everyone has to stop at once or the enemy are going to keep shooting you... how do you negotiate? do you know they wont kill you anyway? surrenders just dont happen in that way.
FireFly Posted May 20, 2010, 11:03 am	There is quite a difference between 2 armies clashing that are fighting for nationality and 2 divisions of armored vehicles clashing that are fighting to steal the enemy cars. In most cases, we want to loot the AI cars, and so goes for our enemy, so if they yell "WE SURRENDER" on the open radio channel, we just get more intact cars out of the deal, thereby, it's actually quite reasonable for them to expect us to cease fire if they do.
*Tinker* Posted May 20, 2010, 11:10 am	I thing FF is right about them surrendering, thought the idea of them routing en mass is a very appealing idea for realism sake, might not be popular for players tho
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 11:13 am	FireFly said: There is quite a difference between 2 armies clashing that are fighting for nationality and 2 divisions of armored vehicles clashing that are fighting to steal the enemy cars. In most cases, we want to loot the AI cars, and so goes for our enemy, so if they yell "WE SURRENDER" on the open radio channel, we just get more intact cars out of the deal, thereby, it's actually quite reasonable for them to expect us to cease fire if they do. FF... at times of strong aroura radios dont work and anyway... you have addressed NONE of the points above about about how you do it.. how you decide... who decides... It would be simply impossible to surrender inthis way and history tells us that people just dont... its a recipe for getting shot... if you are losing you run whilst you can... die... and occasionally get lucky. you just want to be able to loot lots of intact cars and print money. its bad for the game and, as you may have noticed, almost nobody agrees with you. When you see Shark, me and groove aligned against you you have to assume that you are in a VERY small minority. Normally we dont agree on anything much. Its VERY hard to reply to your posts without breaching forum 'rules' as the only interpretation i can put on them is that you are interested solely in YOUR gameplay, YOUR activities and building some sort of bizarre virtual empire. But it is getting really boring. I repeat... you want complaining to Sam that people were picking on you... then. in the face of a clear and articulate demolision of your attempts top make the game into FF's playground you keep posting this stuff.... you cannot have it both ways. What do you expect people to do??? If you behave like a kid people WILL treat you like one whether you like it or not and if you persist then you will be singlehandedly responsible for turning these forumsinto a weird wasteland of deleted posts. That will be your fault.. yours and nobody elses.
FireFly Posted May 20, 2010, 11:33 am	Right then... I wonder if you could actually change how the demo system works to a more... realistic matter... This can really change how some things work... but I think that instead of a car going demo, the occupants really should "Freak out"... So, you incorporate 3 stages of demoralization, first you have the "Demoralized" stage, it would work like it currently does, but then we add 2 stages on top of that... Complete surrender Basically, these cars can go into these states after they demoralize, or in other words, you push them beyond the breaking point, a surrendered car, it would stop completely and just shut down, no weapon fire, no movement, unless fired upon by the enemies, it would do nothing. The passengers have given up all hope of winning or getting away, they've simply given up, could be marked by the car popping a colored smoke flare Freaked Out Well, if this was a player vehicle, you would lose all control over it, it would revert to an AI car trying to escape, or in RP terms, weather it is NPC or AI, the ganger's inside these cars will try to escape by any means necessary. This would be accompanied by some "colorful" npc comments, both of these would also apply to the players, if I didn't make that clear. Now, I would also add "Gang surrenders" to this mix, so instead of the cars demoing one by one, you would make it a "Gang Threshold", and it would be related to above modifiers, see, the easiest way would be to add another sort of reputation score, or morality score for that matter, based on how you treat your enemy, for example, shooting the enemy that surrenders would lead to a negative score, the cause of this would be that your enemy is less likely to surrender to you, and more likely to retreat. Yes goat (and others), what you said about retreats make good sense, so instead of individual cars breaking of randomly like now, we should instead have the surviving part of the enemy force try to retreat all at once, this would be the other option to all out surrender once the enemy reaches that "Threshold", call it gang stress if you want, hell, or gang "Morale". In other words, if you treat your surrendering enemies well, and the word goes around that you do, they are more likely to take your word for it, and the opposite inc ase your a really trigger happy bastard. Those different demoralization states would also address the issue we have with all demoed cars fighting to death. As for who decides, thats the gang leader isn't it, if the gang leader is dead, then the enemy could revert down to the "individual demoralizations", or more likely, scatter and run, and since the aurora doesn't (Due to popular demand) interfere with electronic weapon systems, short range radios should still work, even if they don't, there is another way, smoke signals. If an enemy car surrenders, pop the green smoke, if the gang surrenders, fire a flare into the sky, there are plenty of easily understandable ways to do it. There, thats my idea. (Also, watching one of the last enemy cars fire a bright flare into the sky would be a pretty neat way to end scouts, instead of it just ending)
*sam* Posted May 20, 2010, 11:38 am	The Demoralised - Surrender - Freaked Out system could work quite well FF, but I'd be concerned about player reactions when they suddenly lost control of their characters. When their characters who were still capable of shooting suddently shut down and got pummelled to death. I can almost hear the complaints already... FF said: Yes goat (and others), what you said about retreats make good sense, so instead of individual cars breaking of randomly like now, we should instead have the surviving part of the enemy force try to retreat all at once, this would be the other option to all out surrender once the enemy reaches that "Threshold", call it gang stress if you want, hell, or gang "Morale". This system is already in the game. Maybe it doesn't kick in fast enough.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 11:45 am	FireFly said: Complete surrender Basically, these cars can go into these states after they demoralize, or in other words, you push them beyond the breaking point, a surrendered car, it would stop completely and just shut down, no weapon fire, no movement, unless fired upon by the enemies, it would do nothing. The passengers have given up all hope of winning or getting away, they've simply given up, could be marked by the car popping a colored smoke flare this is tantamount to suicide... it just wouldnt happen FireFly said: so instead of individual cars breaking of randomly like now, we should instead have the surviving part of the enemy force try to retreat all at once, this would be the other option to all out surrender once the enemy reaches that "Threshold", call it gang stress if you want, hell, or gang "Morale". that is a very good suggestion... but they should run in all sorts of directions... not some organised retreat... forcing you to decide how to chase them down. It does happen now... but only right at the end... the mass demo being replaced by a mass 'leg it' would make sense... dont agree with your green smoke stuff... it makes this look like a war rather than a gunfight wildwest style... I just dont believe that the post apocalyptic RP world has that degree of organisation.
FireFly Posted May 20, 2010, 11:45 am	*sam* said: - Well, to make the AI more... "Human", they would reasonably want to loot our own cars to, or sell us as slaves, or just fend us off, so when our cars "Surrender" and pop that smoke, they are pretty much dead in the enemies eyes, its almost safer than controlling a breached and demoed car yourself, they would cease to become active targets altogether, since the players cant move them, and the cars running away would be running away from the battle, and also be a lesser target. As for AI running away, well, I've seen the odd car run away, but I've never seen several cars trying to get away at once. Goat said: that is a very good suggestion... but they should run in all sorts of directions... not some organized retreat... forcing you to decide how to chase them down. It does happen now... but only right at the end... I never really meant Organized retreat, I thought of it more like that the 10/35 remaining cars basically go "RUN FOR IT" and all 10 turn and try to get away at once, the organized part was just that they do it all at once, as a gang decision. FireFly said: dont agree with your green smoke stuff... it makes this look like a war rather than a gunfight wildwest style... I just dont believe that the post apocalyptic RP world has that degree of organisation. Why not, if anything, post apocalyptic gangs need organization, food/water rationing, maintenance, and stuff like that. Going back to my main point, we want to take the AI cars in a functional state and they want to do the same, most of them anyway, and it doesn't have to be smoke per se, but some in game visual signal is not far fetched at all, if radios doesn't work in the aurora, people would be smart enough to improvise.
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 11:56 am	Studman said: goat starer said: JS... you really need to read some books... Appomatox - last battle (just about) of a war - this is a defeated ARMY surrendering when its leaders realise that they are fighting a vastly superior force trhan they had assumed.. its the end of a war not a single battle - and entirely irrelevant. Yorktown - 19,000 troops BESIGING 9000 troops - great example for what i said  Saratoga - THREE battles before the british surrender... despite being decisively beaten in the second... note that the Americans did NOT surrender when they lost the first... are youbTRYING to prove my point or just doing it by accident? Battle of San Antonio - i dont know this one but given your strike rate so far i dont hold out much hope for you! Surrender of Montreal - 42,000 people beat about 20,000 - again proviong my point Siege of Kut Al Amara - you are actually being funny now... there were 31,000 british troops in this battle (with about 10,000 commonwealth)... it was a siege wityh 41,000 turks on the other side... and the surrender came when 30,000 of them had been KILLED.... Argentines in the Falklands - conscripts surrender to professional army after being completely cut off from reinforcements and supplies... wow... suprising Corrigidor - in the orifinal battle... 11,000 troops surrendered to 75,000 (what dont you get here? how is that overwhelming odds?) Stalingrad - LMAO - the russians lose over 1 MILLION people and still dont surrender... You are going great guns here!!! Second Battle of El Alamein -  germand surrnder after losing 500 of 545 tanks... and 30,000 men ... against a numerically superior force ... hardly a cascade. Nearly every battle between the Greek city states Virtually every battle ever waged between Stone/Bronze Age warriors Virtually every knightly contest and battle in the middle ages (They made an art of ransom and surrendering before getting too hurt) - these are pure speculation I'm glad someone with a better knowledge of history tore that argument apart. Surrender in the middle of battle is EXTREMELY rare. Organized or disorganized retreat is the response to survival instinct. Gents,  these were battles, where there were surreners.  The point of course I have made all along is that a force will surrender when the odds are too long.  In the case of 35 cars vs 20 (typical Mega) after a certain number of the enemy is dead/equipment is destroyed they will lose heart and surrender vice being killed.  This is exactly what my examples show.  A force losing heart and surrendering.  Additionally, even in an "organized" retreat (a debateable term for most retreats in history) equipment will be left behind, small units will be enveloped and overwhelmed and plenty more will surrender.  The idea being of course that the larger whole is kept intact.  Still, on thesmall unit scale, surrenders are common in these "organised" retreats.  A great example of this is trader hunting.  Right off the bat, a percentage attempt a retreat.  We chase and keep them close such that their retreat does not afford them santuary, kill their other forces and they surrender. As for what's his names assertion that a force rarely surrenders, that is still as false as it ever was.  He asked for examples, I gave them.  I suggested one of the leading authorties on warfare as a read, a book which clearly supports my assertions, yet he of course continues baseless (sans examples which he demanded from me) claims.  It is high comedy, I have said it bfore, the guy is worth a laugh if nothing else. "Corrigidor - in the orifinal battle... 11,000 troops surrendered to 75,000 (what dont you get here? how is that overwhelming odds?)"  Goat, 75K vs 11K is not overwhelming?
LoSboccacc Posted May 20, 2010, 12:01 pm	on the retreats where the army started to actually have an equipement, they made a point of destroying cannons before escaping. (makes totally sense, you don't wan't your cannon turned up to you at close range while you're retreating) but we're not debating history accuracy in a post apocalyptic game, aren't we? the point is to balance the roi involved in a mega scout.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 12:05 pm	7 to 1 odds IS overwhelming... OF COURSE IT IS.. JS said: "Corrigidor - in the orifinal battle... 11,000 troops surrendered to 75,000 (what dont you get here? how is that overwhelming odds?)"  Goat, 75K vs 11K is not overwhelming? YOU ALTERED MY QUOTE IN QUOTING IT!! You little ####... (yeah edit that out mods) you removed the word NOT from my quote when you quoted it... luckily everyone can see that from the time stamp on the posts. That is probably the most underhand thing i have seen on a forum. you are now arguing the opposite point than the one you were arguing before.... The principle is this.. people continue to fight even when heavilyy outnumbered and ONLY surrender whenthey can do so safely or have no choice having run out of the material to fight with. None of these situations are ever the case in DW. Typically the end of a scout the enemy still has all their capital vehicles (the ones we want to loot) intact and we have shot up a bunch of symphs... but a firetruck will surrender just because you killed a bunch of sedans... On a mega scout the number surrendering can be as many as half the original cars... there are no examples on your list where this sort of mass surrender takes place when there is a significant fighting force with the ability and means to fight who are not hugely outnumbered or gunned. Its unrealistic... totally... and banging on about it aint going to change that. You posted some examples that only prove the point about Dw surrenders NOT being like those in history and are now conveniently ignoring the fact that you demolished your own argument. these were not surrenders DURING battles... they were almost all negotiated outside the field of battle or were sieges where you can put white flags up and stop shooting without being immediately cut down. you havnt come up with a single relevant example.
*Wolfsbane* Posted May 20, 2010, 12:30 pm	LoSboccacc said: but we're not debating history accuracy in a post apocalyptic game, aren't we? the point is to balance the roi involved in a mega scout. Very, very this.  I've lost count of how many fights I've had with game designers over this point.  If realism conflicts with making a fun game, make the game fun then come up with an excuse later.
something clever Posted May 20, 2010, 12:46 pm	I got a chance to participate in a mega last night and experience the new stress out rules. While victory still felt certain through out the engagement (at least from where I was shooting) it certainly ran a good deal longer. I liked not seeing five to ten cars demo per round before I got a chance to shoot anything. The loot turned out to be less than it used to be and there were certainly more holes in the seat covers, but overall I liked the change. Instead of tagging along for a loot fest I got to shoot a few bads and bring home some wrecks to show for it. Nice changes. Keep up the great work!
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 12:47 pm	Wolfsbane said: LoSboccacc said: but we're not debating history accuracy in a post apocalyptic game, aren't we? the point is to balance the roi involved in a mega scout. Very, very this.  I've lost count of how many fights I've had with game designers over this point.  If realism conflicts with making a fun game, make the game fun then come up with an excuse later. for many people having a 'realistic' framework for even 'unrealistic' settings facilitates the suspension of disbelief that all fiction relies on.
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 12:48 pm	goat starer said: 7 to 1 odds IS overwhelming... OF COURSE IT IS.. JS said: "Corrigidor - in the orifinal battle... 11,000 troops surrendered to 75,000 (what dont you get here? how is that overwhelming odds?)"  Goat, 75K vs 11K is not overwhelming? YOU ALTERED MY QUOTE IN QUOTING IT!! You little ####... (yeah edit that out mods) you removed the word NOT from my quote when you quoted it... luckily everyone can see that from the time stamp on the posts. That is probably the most underhand thing i have seen on a forum. you are now arguing the opposite point than the one you were arguing before.... The principle is this.. people continue to fight even when heavilyy outnumbered and ONLY surrender whenthey can do so safely or have no choice having run out of the material to fight with. None of these situations are ever the case in DW. Typically the end of a scout the enemy still has all their capital vehicles (the ones we want to loot) intact and we have shot up a bunch of symphs... but a firetruck will surrender just because you killed a bunch of sedans... On a mega scout the number surrendering can be as many as half the original cars... there are no examples on your list where this sort of mass surrender takes place when there is a significant fighting force with the ability and means to fight who are not hugely outnumbered or gunned. Its unrealistic... totally... and banging on about it aint going to change that. You posted some examples that only prove the point about Dw surrenders NOT being like those in history and are now conveniently ignoring the fact that you demolished your own argument. these were not surrenders DURING battles... they were almost all negotiated outside the field of battle or were sieges where you can put white flags up and stop shooting without being immediately cut down. you havnt come up with a single relevant example. Actually Goat, the first time "Not" is gone from your first post is in the quote of it by What's his name.  I cut and pasted from one of the posts where it is missing already.  I should have taken it from your orig.  I certainly did not delete a word from your post.  I found it an odd statement based on your argument which is why I quoted it.  It certainly makes more sense with the word not there.  Now step back from the ledge.  It was not a clever ploy on my part, or even less than clever for that matter.
Groove Champion Posted May 20, 2010, 2:19 pm	FireFly said: Alright, I apologize to some of you for my rather... "Snappy" behavior yesterday Apology accepted. Don't do it again.
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 2:37 pm	goat starer said: Wolfsbane said: LoSboccacc said: but we're not debating history accuracy in a post apocalyptic game, aren't we? the point is to balance the roi involved in a mega scout. Very, very this.  I've lost count of how many fights I've had with game designers over this point.  If realism conflicts with making a fun game, make the game fun then come up with an excuse later. for many people having a 'realistic' framework for even 'unrealistic' settings facilitates the suspension of disbelief that all fiction relies on. Yes, we have mixed game mechanics with a discussion about historical surrender/retreat etc. My basic point is that the cascading demos seemed about right to me from a historical perspective based on the 50% number being combat ineffective (a generalization of course but still vaid).  Counter arguments said the nuber was higher, or that surrender was less likely and retreat was more likely.  Perhaps in game terms whether it is a retreat or a surrender is not really germaine as far as looting goes.  The "result" of either is loot in game terms.  If the cascading is generating too much loot and unbalancing the game then the "fun" factor mentioned above kicks in and trumps the rest.  Bottom line, I don't believe having to kill nearly every enemy just to get a car or two is the answer.  Somewhere there is a reasonable middle ground. The rest of the debate about the history and battles is just enjoyment of discussion.
LoSboccacc Posted May 20, 2010, 2:40 pm	goat starer said: for many people having a 'realistic' framework for even 'unrealistic' settings facilitates the suspension of disbelief that all fiction relies on. of course, and I'm actually one of those. but games need also to cut some corners to get out of the door, and writing an AI that can actually maintain cohesion, flank your lines and bring all the combat rating worth of its weapons upon you is very difficult. so, forming a line of car cannon *right now* means having an united front to which computer cars just come one after another to get slaughtered. and the sam problem right now is: how can the encounter be challenging for player that deploy a car cannons line? how can it be rewarding, considering the cost involved in maintaining such an equipement? but the truth is - sam didn't even wanted to make to enter into the realm of those problems, he fixed a *bug* involving the stacking of stress on characters. it was not a balancing act, a rule change or something. (but I do agree that the new code makes large encounters an excruciating pain)
*Tinker* Posted May 20, 2010, 2:49 pm	LoSboccacc said: and the sam problem right now is: how can the encounter be challenging for player that deploy a car cannons line? how can it be rewarding, considering the cost involved in maintaining such an equipement? Why not make ammo rare and or very expensive at least for the rare weapons, yes we have SV, but
iceman Posted May 20, 2010, 3:13 pm	+1 ammo for rare weapons should be rare too right now you can get unlimited RGM and TG ammo in Somerset but no car better than a chomper if rare weapons were difficult to supply with ammo up north their use would be less
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 3:16 pm	JS said: My basic point is that the cascading demos seemed about right to me from a historical perspective based on the 50% number being combat ineffective (a generalization of course but still vaid).  Counter arguments said the nuber was higher, or that surrender was less likely and retreat was more likely.  you see i fundamentally disagree with you on this... combat effectiveness is determined by the vehicles not the number of cars... i can demo 8 symphs and if there is a firetruck or a dragons breath left it is more dangerous than all those cars and crew put together. there is no reason why a crew (probably the elite if they have been given the biggets car) would surrender and face at best the danger of a walk home... at worst instant death or slavery... until they are in immenant mortal danger. if they felt it was getting hairy i could see them running... but not giving up.. here is an example from real life... HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales meet the Bismark and Prinz Eugen as they break out from Norway... despite a good strategy and a slight advantage in guns the Hood (flagship of the british navy) is almost immediately sunk killing all but 3 crew leaving a brand new capital ship fighting the most advanced battleship of its day and its escort pocket battleship... the prince of wales kept fighting... only when its brand new guns elevation mechanisms jammed did it give up... but it didnt surrender... it made smoke, turned and fled. This is what teh enemy should be doing... giving up your vehicle in the desert or becoming a prisoner is incredibly dangerous in Evan... you would do it as a last resort. ------------------------- I am all in favour of making the enemy make a judgement about when to run I'm all in favour of making us hunt them down as they run but i want them running not surrendering and I want the firing like mad as they run away.
LoSboccacc Posted May 20, 2010, 3:22 pm	enemy escaping would work too. but just add a routing status and the ability to end the scout early when all enemy are demoralized or routed so you don't have to wait for them to escape while being a sitting duck for the others. (added bonus: this would make having interceptors useful too) please, no more arbitrary somerset restrictions, it's as bad as it is. and mostly irrelevant once you discover that a noob crew could drive an apache up there with just a bit of luck. (and maybe a wreckage every now and then)
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 4:19 pm	goat starer said: JS said: My basic point is that the cascading demos seemed about right to me from a historical perspective based on the 50% number being combat ineffective (a generalization of course but still vaid).  Counter arguments said the nuber was higher, or that surrender was less likely and retreat was more likely.  you see i fundamentally disagree with you on this... combat effectiveness is determined by the vehicles not the number of cars... i can demo 8 symphs and if there is a firetruck or a dragons breath left it is more dangerous than all those cars and crew put together. there is no reason why a crew (probably the elite if they have been given the biggets car) would surrender and face at best the danger of a walk home... at worst instant death or slavery... until they are in immenant mortal danger. if they felt it was getting hairy i could see them running... but not giving up.. here is an example from real life... HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales meet the Bismark and Prinz Eugen as they break out from Norway... despite a good strategy and a slight advantage in guns the Hood (flagship of the british navy) is almost immediately sunk killing all but 3 crew leaving a brand new capital ship fighting the most advanced battleship of its day and its escort pocket battleship... the prince of wales kept fighting... only when its brand new guns elevation mechanisms jammed did it give up... but it didnt surrender... it made smoke, turned and fled. This is what teh enemy should be doing... giving up your vehicle in the desert or becoming a prisoner is incredibly dangerous in Evan... you would do it as a last resort. ------------------------- I am all in favour of making the enemy make a judgement about when to run I'm all in favour of making us hunt them down as they run but i want them running not surrendering and I want the firing like mad as they run away. One problem wiht the argument about the large vehicles not demoing is that we usually kill every other vehicle off before engaging the big boy.  Tactially the nemy should better use their larger vehicles.  But the AI struggles with this.  It's a bit of a trade off as making the AI doggedly stay together would not in the "fun" interest of the game.  Good example for your position.  But the Price of Wales always had the option to flee.  In our game the enemy is typically unable to.  Or the AI cannot manage it, which ends up being the same thing for practical purposes. I would contend after seeing 50% of yoyur force destroyed or killed, and having no good options to flee, then even the elite or larger vehicles will demo (effectively surrender in game terms).  One smallpoint, you said they would face slavery or death.  In the case of my gange (role playing etc) we would not kill our prisoners or enslave them.  In fact, the reputation of the enemy also has a large effect on surrender.  I agree, if for example a force is facing a gang known for killing their prisoners they are more likely to fight longer and face worse odds.  Still, at some point they will give up if they cannot get away and surrender.  There is at some point the straw that breaks the camels back.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 4:45 pm	JS said: Good example for your position.  But the Price of Wales always had the option to flee.  Did it? here are the relative speeds... 28.0 knots - POW 30.1 knots  - Bismark 33.5 kn  - Prinz Eugen it really had no reason at all to assume it would get away... add in the fact that it was at range that the Bismark sank teh hood due to the superiority of its gunnery computation and the weakness of the decks of the hood and you make running look very risky... but less certain death than staying where you were. Incidentally... when the Bismark was finally caught by a whole British fleet comprising... 2 aircraft carriers 3 battleships 4 cruisers 7 destroyers with a damaged rudder it fought until it rolled over! JS said: In our game the enemy is typically unable to.  Or the AI cannot manage it, which ends up being the same thing for practical purposes that is simply wrong. when the enemy does run in this game i regulaly lose them... because... in a typical big souther scout we have rear weapons and heavy vehicles. Running is a very effective strategy for the bad guys... their stress goes down so even if you keep killing their mates they often make escape distance.
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 20, 2010, 4:58 pm	Feels he may be learning something here for a change
simonmaxhill Posted May 20, 2010, 5:37 pm	I know this is off topic, but here's my idea: Accordion out your forces, first running and crippling/killing the cars that catch up to you, and then violently reverse, and charge with two (spaced out) ranks of vehicles with a third much smaller rank behind. The first two ranks charge through the sparsely spread NPCs, making an aggressive charge towards any NPC stragglers. By passing through the NPCs while they are strung out with a large, well armored force that is crippling/killing them during the charge, you will avoid a situation in which the NPCs can concentrate fire. This means you can demo vehicles but won't have to destroy them completely, because their fire will be ineffective. Because you have multiple vehicles (not in a line, mind you) the NPC will change targets as the vehicles become closer and further. Any NPC vehicle that exhibits the common sense of actually pursuing one of your vehicles gets "cleaned up" by the 2nd rank. The third rank can deal with any stragglers/leftovers from the main body's charge. This should allow you to fight a very large force and mitigate the dangers of demo'd but still active cars. I know, I know, it's not a firing line, but maybe, just maybe, there's some other way of doing things. And before you say "this is meaningless speculation", I'll say that this is how I do battle with my trucking group. Granted, she's only 1600 CR, but I'm pretty sure you can scale it up, with some tweaks.
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 5:41 pm	goat starer said: JS said: Good example for your position.  But the Price of Wales always had the option to flee.  Did it? here are the relative speeds... 28.0 knots - POW 30.1 knots  - Bismark 33.5 kn  - Prinz Eugen it really had no reason at all to assume it would get away... add in the fact that it was at range that the Bismark sank teh hood due to the superiority of its gunnery computation and the weakness of the decks of the hood and you make running look very risky... but less certain death than staying where you were. Incidentally... when the Bismark was finally caught by a whole British fleet comprising... 2 aircraft carriers 3 battleships 4 cruisers 7 destroyers with a damaged rudder it fought until it rolled over! JS said: In our game the enemy is typically unable to.  Or the AI cannot manage it, which ends up being the same thing for practical purposes that is simply wrong. when the enemy does run in this game i regulaly lose them... because... in a typical big souther scout we have rear weapons and heavy vehicles. Running is a very effective strategy for the bad guys... their stress goes down so even if you keep killing their mates they often make escape distance. I of course said it had the option to flee.  I never said it "assumed" it could get away.  You said that.  The captain had not reached the point where surrender was required to survive.  The Bismark fighting till it rolled over (similar situation to the Yamamoto) is the exception to the rule.  The fact that you are not set up to chase in the south based on large vehicles and rear guns does not negate the fact that the AI is poor at running.  Because it clearly is.  If you were set up to chase, and chased every runner down, only to have to kill them, is that more realistic in your mind? Yes, their stress goes down with distance.  I agree with that.  I am of course arguing that the close enemies, given a large number of their friends dieing will surrender vice fight on.  Or they will attempt to flee.  If I have vehicles close enough (whatever that range is in game), they would be more likely to surrender, fearing for their very lives.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 5:50 pm	JS said: The Bismark fighting till it rolled over (similar situation to the Yamamoto) is the exception to the rule.  you say that.. but you have not shown me ONE example of 'the rule' in operation... wheras i have a great big bunch of 'exceptions'  the Yamato being one of them (Yamamoto was the admiral) real lack of surrendering in naval warfare. (or indeed in anything that happens in a vehicle... its very hard to surrender in a vehicle) JS said: The fact that you are not set up to chase in the south based on large vehicles and rear guns does not negate the fact that the AI is poor at running.  Because it clearly is.  If you were set up to chase, and chased every runner down, only to have to kill them, is that more realistic in your mind? erm yes... thats EXACTLY what the captain of teh POW did... running till something is hurting you seems very realistic... and in my experience the AI runs pretty well... I have chased blackstones in front mounted buzzers and lost them.
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 5:58 pm	Goat, you did not lose a Black Stone by letting it run from you, really? Yes Yamato, true enough. Real example? Iraqi desert 1991. Huge amounts of equipment left behind. Men simply got out of their vehicles vice get killed. Mass surrenders, small units, large units, whole formations. Sometimes they surrendered to a single HMMWV. Cascading Demo. Disheartened by the destruction. VERY much less than 50% of their people killed although a significant portion of their equipoment was. They tried to run, did a goo dimitation of the AI actually. Too late and not at all organized. "Chasers" (aircraft) were on them like white on rice. Lots of loot. Incidently, they had just achieved the very same thing vs the Kuwaitis a few motnhs earlier. Grnated they out numbered and powered the Kuwaitis.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 6:02 pm	JS said: Goat, you did not lose a Black Stone by letting it run from you, really?  Yes Yamato, true enough. Real example?  Iraqi desert 1991.  Huge amounts of equipment left behind.  Men simply got out of their vehicles vice get killed.  Mass surrenders, small units, large units, whole formations.  Sometimes they surrendered to a single HMMWV.  Cascading Demo.  Disheartened by the destruction.  VERY much less than 50% of their people killed although a significant portion of their equipoment was.  They tried to run, did a goo dimitation of the AI actually.  Too late and not at all organized.  "Chasers" (aircraft) were on them like white on rice.  Lots of loot.  Incidently, they had just achieved the very same thing vs the Kuwaitis a few motnhs earlier.  Grnated they out numbered and powered the Kuwaitis.  JS... I have lost all sorts of thingsby having them run from me.... its not hard. this is just not the same example.. you are, AGAIN, comparing conscript forces in a beaten army fighting a vastly superior force with motivated evenly matched forces. give me (EDIT a several) relevant example where something like what you are decribing has taken place and i will take it seriously. in the meanwhile the enemy running rather than demoing at the cascade point seems like a good compromise that will reduce the loot farming that large scouts turn into. combine that with a much increased ambush chance for larger scouts and you have something I think looks pretty real and would remove this exploit. ------------------------------ probably the best example of the NPCs from history I can think of would be the Charge of the Light Brigade..
JS Posted May 20, 2010, 7:45 pm	goat starer said: JS said: Goat, you did not lose a Black Stone by letting it run from you, really?  Yes Yamato, true enough. Real example?  Iraqi desert 1991.  Huge amounts of equipment left behind.  Men simply got out of their vehicles vice get killed.  Mass surrenders, small units, large units, whole formations.  Sometimes they surrendered to a single HMMWV.  Cascading Demo.  Disheartened by the destruction.  VERY much less than 50% of their people killed although a significant portion of their equipoment was.  They tried to run, did a goo dimitation of the AI actually.  Too late and not at all organized.  "Chasers" (aircraft) were on them like white on rice.  Lots of loot.  Incidently, they had just achieved the very same thing vs the Kuwaitis a few motnhs earlier.  Grnated they out numbered and powered the Kuwaitis.  JS... I have lost all sorts of thingsby having them run from me.... its not hard. this is just not the same example.. you are, AGAIN, comparing conscript forces in a beaten army fighting a vastly superior force with motivated evenly matched forces. give me (EDIT a several) relevant example where something like what you are decribing has taken place and i will take it seriously. in the meanwhile the enemy running rather than demoing at the cascade point seems like a good compromise that will reduce the loot farming that large scouts turn into. combine that with a much increased ambush chance for larger scouts and you have something I think looks pretty real and would remove this exploit. ------------------------------ probably the best example of the NPCs from history I can think of would be the Charge of the Light Brigade.. I hope you would admit the charge of the Light Brigade was an exception.  By the way, they made a mistake, ahd they known what was there they likely would not have done that.  Didn't they charge up the wrong valley? Once again, for the record.  I never said the enemy running was not valid.  I said the demo cascade after the percentage of losses they sustained was valid.  There was and is a range at which  confident vehicles won't demo, or are more difficult to demo at any rate.  I have no issue with that 300+ (or whatever the number is) guy still running away.  My issue is with demoed guys still fighting on and confident guys wading in after half their forces are destroyed.  Enemies close to tht kind of overwhelming carnage are acting contrary reality. It may be that play balance requires them to fight on as some kind of super brave sub species.  That's fine if that's how it is.  I think it should not be, but that's my opinion and I've backed it with my thoughts on it. I do think it interesting that you have several times claimed it was important that my examples were of conscripts vs trained forces.  That was one of my orig points.  The majority of warfare in history has been between un-professional armies if you will.  Large organized and well trained armies are the minority in terms of the history of human warfare.  I think our "gangs" are hardly highly organized armies in set piece battles.  I'd think their morale in very tenuous at best and very reliant on personality (of leaders) than by discipline and skill.  Fortunes good or bad will affect such a force on the battle field much more than a highly disciplined and skilled army.  Such forces are prone to runnning and surrendering, depending ont he situation than professional armies.  Standing and fighting a decisive battle is very much the excpetion for these kinds of forces.  In fact, the decisive battle is very much the way of western war.  Pioneered by the Greeks and brough to full fruition in World War II.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 9:13 pm	JS said: I hope you would admit the charge of the Light Brigade was an exception.  By the way, they made a mistake, ahd they known what was there they likely would not have done that.  Didn't they charge up the wrong valley? i have no idea what you are arguing any more.. the Light brigade didn't surrender... they charged a gun battery... inflicted some casualties... got shot to pieces and ran away... still being shot to pieces. Pretty much typical behaviour of people in vehicles (in this case horses) throughout military history. and no they didnt charge up the wrong valley... it was the right valley... just a bloody stupid idea. your assesment of what our gangs are (or are not) is not bourne out by their descriptions ... some are described as a rabble... but only very few. again.. give me one example to support mass surrender of a force which still has mobility, resonable numbers, provisions and the ability to fight or run...  i will drop the 'several' request and just ask for one.
Crazy AL Posted May 20, 2010, 9:18 pm	goat starer said: FireFly said: Complete surrender Basically, these cars can go into these states after they demoralize, or in other words, you push them beyond the breaking point, a surrendered car, it would stop completely and just shut down, no weapon fire, no movement, unless fired upon by the enemies, it would do nothing. The passengers have given up all hope of winning or getting away, they've simply given up, could be marked by the car popping a colored smoke flare this is tantamount to suicide... it just wouldnt happen I disagree with it being suicide. Raising the white flag (or a flare) is an established tactic to save yourself or your men and give up everything else. Now it's a choice whether or not the opponent honors it or not, but if I had an enemy car surrender with little damage I would typically not trash the cars or the occupants and I'm a killer. Many scouts I am perfectly happy killing half the pirates and taking no loot home so surrendering wouldn't make much difference to me if I am bent on slaughtering pirates more than bring home loot.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 9:22 pm	Crazy AL said: goat starer said: FireFly said: Complete surrender Basically, these cars can go into these states after they demoralize, or in other words, you push them beyond the breaking point, a surrendered car, it would stop completely and just shut down, no weapon fire, no movement, unless fired upon by the enemies, it would do nothing. The passengers have given up all hope of winning or getting away, they've simply given up, could be marked by the car popping a colored smoke flare this is tantamount to suicide... it just wouldnt happen I disagree with it being suicide. Raising the white flag (or a flare) is an established tactic to save yourself or your men and give up everything else. Now it's a choice whether or not the opponent honors it or not, but if I had an enemy car surrender with little damage I would typically not trash the cars or the occupants and I'm a killer. Many scouts I am perfectly happy killing half the pirates and taking no loot home so surrendering wouldn't make much difference to me if I am bent on slaughtering pirates more than bring home loot. you are simply not following the 'its impossible to surrender in the middle of a battle' argument... it just is.  stopping firing is simply too risky as it could be a ruse... if there were some kind of flare system in place in evan (which would be weird.. this isnt supposed to be a sport!!!) do you really think some gangs wouldnt abuse it? I'm not stopping shooting just because a car sticks a white hanky out of a gun slit.
FireFly Posted May 20, 2010, 9:26 pm	goat starer said: Crazy AL said: goat starer said: FireFly said: Complete surrender Basically, these cars can go into these states after they demoralize, or in other words, you push them beyond the breaking point, a surrendered car, it would stop completely and just shut down, no weapon fire, no movement, unless fired upon by the enemies, it would do nothing. The passengers have given up all hope of winning or getting away, they've simply given up, could be marked by the car popping a colored smoke flare this is tantamount to suicide... it just wouldnt happen I disagree with it being suicide. Raising the white flag (or a flare) is an established tactic to save yourself or your men and give up everything else. Now it's a choice whether or not the opponent honors it or not, but if I had an enemy car surrender with little damage I would typically not trash the cars or the occupants and I'm a killer. Many scouts I am perfectly happy killing half the pirates and taking no loot home so surrendering wouldn't make much difference to me if I am bent on slaughtering pirates more than bring home loot. you are simply not following the 'its impossible to surrender in the middle of a battle' argument... it just is.  stopping firing is simply too risky as it could be a ruse... if there were some kind of flare system in place in evan (which would be weird.. this isnt supposed to be a sport!!!) do you really think some gangs wouldnt abuse it? I'm not stopping shooting just because a car sticks a white hanky out of a gun slit. Hence why gangs would have a general "Honor" rating, word gets around.
Kornkob The Dude Posted May 20, 2010, 9:27 pm	Goat, I respectfully submit that the back and forth between you and JS has been variable enough that I'm not clear on what exactly you guys are proposing to change about the game any more.. Perhaps if you were to start a new thread with the proposed change clearly stated in it, that might help others participate. Clearly people do want to participate but it is hard to find where we might have observations of value.
*goat starer* Posted May 20, 2010, 9:32 pm	its not a proposed change.. it has been changed... here it is in the past there was a linear stress rise that made as many as 50% of the enemy surrender on mass when in good shape in larger scouts. that was silly and a money making exploit in larger scouts sam changed it then he tweaked it a bit. now it is better various people who have benefitted from this exploit and who want to be able to loot every good car intact... led by my good friend Firefly... think this change is bad. they are wrong .................... the only thing i would like to see is more emphasis on cars fleeing rather than surrendering as things get bad for them. the end
Kornkob The Dude Posted May 20, 2010, 10:16 pm	Makes sense. Thanks for the summary.
Valiance Posted May 20, 2010, 11:40 pm	SInce I've returned, I've noticed pirates turning tail and fleeing when they are being beaten. It's very annoying, in that sometimes I have to destroy perfectly good loot cars because the bad guy is fleeing, I'm not fast enough to catch him and the demo-d guys near me are still firing. So I dead them. It's annoying, but's realistic and rationale, and I like it. I've even started making sure that I always take a muscle car to chase down those fleeing buggers when on an SUV scout. So I think it's a good change.
JS Posted May 21, 2010, 12:00 am	Kornkob The Dude said: Goat, I respectfully submit that the back and forth between you and JS has been variable enough that I'm not clear on what exactly you guys are proposing to change about the game any more..  Perhaps if you were to start a new thread with the proposed change clearly stated in it, that might help others participate.  Clearly people do want to participate but it is hard to find where we might have observations of value.    Korn,       My point all along is that 50% is about the historical number where units give up, whether by fleeing or surrendering.  More emphasis on fleeing is fine.  I've already seen evidence of this.  One unintended (or maybe intended) thing it does is draw out scouts.  I know one player that has reduced playing time due to this as a large expenditure of time and effort was made to create a large squad capable of mega scouts where a good number of cars could be captured.  That's only one, and perhaps it will be a net gain in the long run.  Anecdotal at this time.  The last mega I did in GW after the initial change took 3 hours.  I've seen some last 35 turns or even less before the change.  Probably a good middle ground in there somewhere.  Lastly.  As one of the "various people" as Goat says (I have to assume he did as well), who benefitted from the "exploit" (albeit for about 2 weeks) because it seemed about right to me I'd hesitate to call it an exploit.  I think Sam has used that word, so it is probably not part of his vision though I don't want to put words in his mouth.  It is a done deal, so I'll get on with it and see how she goes though it has been perhaps only the second thing that has dimmed my opinion of the game which remains sky high despite that fact.
*Lugal* Posted May 21, 2010, 12:04 am	If we're leaning on the realism card I would toss in that, speaking from experience, combat is chaotic and confusing, and has a tendency to be over rather quickly.  Combatants typically don't surrender mid-firefight, because they simply don't have enough time for that concept to form and be accepted.  Well before they should have come to that decision, they're already dead.* Combat in DarkWind is measured in seconds - I've seen as little as four, and I'm sure that's not the record.  With anywhere from two to fifty-five (?) cars simultaneously engaging each other, even with the assumption of contant radio contact between allies, the crew of a single vehicle wouldn't necessarily even realize they are losing before it's too late. Now, the (arguably) more important card is fun.  What makes for the most enjoyable encounter that is realistic enough and works within the scope of the developer's intent? I'm sure we can find that good middleground.  * The exception being those who are already demoralized due to the larger scope of the engagement, but those typically flee immediately.  Darkwind NPCs start the encounter ready and willing to fight. EDIT - sorry for the book, but I forgot the other point. "Realistically" speaking, conscious surrender is only an option if you believe it's a viable option.  You wouldn't willingly surrender to cannibals or slavers.  However, the traumatic, overwhelming nature of combat can make people effectively surrender due to shock, fear, etc.  For gameplay purposes that's the same thing.
JS Posted May 21, 2010, 12:14 am	*Lugal* said: If we're leaning on the realism card I would toss in that, speaking from experience, combat is chaotic and confusing, and has a tendency to be over rather quickly.  Combatants typically don't surrender mid-firefight, because they simply don't have enough time for that concept to form and be accepted.  Well before they should have come to that decision, they're already dead.* Combat in DarkWind is measured in seconds - I've seen as little as four, and I'm sure that's not the record.  With anywhere from two to fifty-five (?) cars simultaneously engaging each other, even with the assumption of contant radio contact between allies, the crew of a single vehicle wouldn't necessarily even realize they are losing before it's too late. Now, the (arguably) more important card is fun.  What makes for the most enjoyable encounter that is realistic enough and works within the scope of the developer's intent? I'm sure we can find that good middleground.  * The exception being those who are already demoralized due to the larger scope of the engagement, but those typically flee immediately.  Darkwind NPCs start the encounter ready and willing to fight. Ok, so which is it?  Can you or can you not surrender in a fire fight?  Who are these NPCs who are surrendering when the loot phase comes up?  You cannot have it both ways.  Following the logic of people being unable to surrender in a fire fight, and based on the time scale of DW, we should never see a surrender.  Every car/person should fight till it is dead or flees.  This is simply not historically supported, and is contrary to common sense.  If we agree that it is possible to surrender in a fire fight, as it must be possible if there ever was a surrender on a battle field (where I'd daresay the majority of surrenders happen), then we are just haggling about percentages in terms of the game mechanics.  I am happy to haggle over the percentages.  But the outrageous assertion that surrender does not happen in a fire fight is just really getting too much to take.
*Lugal* Posted May 21, 2010, 12:40 am	Damn you people respond quickly.  Some of us are pretending to work.  I think the biggest problem here is we are comparing dramatically variant degrees of scale. Yes, historically there have been countless battlefield surrenders.  No one is arguing that isn't the case.  But those are in a longer time-frame and under more expansive circumstances. Those are not the same as an individual firefight lasting a few seconds between fresh, motivated forces with modern weapons.  That's what you typically have in a DW encounter. Of course there are exceptions.  I said "typically", which is not how you read it as an absolute.  Please also read the extra I wrote in as an edit, that helps explain the existance of the "firefight surrender". My point was that scaling it back is grounded in a "realistic" sense, but that ultimately it's more important to have something that is fun and fits the game.
*Bastille* Posted May 21, 2010, 2:19 am	It makes sense to run if you can or think you can. Doesn't matter what car Im in and in what condition it is, If I thik I have a chance to run, I will, and expect the enemy to do the same, especially those lovely rare pieces of loot. Only had a couple of biffs since this change seems to have come into effect. The enemy seemed to be less suicidal and I had to do more chasing than usual. Ended in me blowing up a lot of loot. VSGs might get some more use, and not just their smaller more effective cousin, the fletchette gun. All in all, tweeks seem good. Keeps the battle interesting.
Honor First Posted May 21, 2010, 6:13 am	Sorry Sam, but the new code is really disheartening. I only have a little time after work to play and it now takes twice as long as it used to and the risk vs. reward isn't balanced. I ran a mail run with Palehorse today and we got ambushed by 11 cars (np there) but we had to kill every person in 10 of the cars (might have missed one to be sure) have two of them expode and the last car still didn't want to demo, it just ran away confident taking many turns to chase down. We did get to take home a lot of scrap metal though.
Joel Autobaun Posted May 21, 2010, 6:36 am	I like it, the NPCs seem to be playing like a player might in PVP - for keeps. I think it's for the best in the long term. I think you guys that don't like it might grow to like it.
JS Posted May 21, 2010, 9:24 am	*Lugal* said: Damn you people respond quickly.  Some of us are pretending to work.  I think the biggest problem here is we are comparing dramatically variant degrees of scale. Yes, historically there have been countless battlefield surrenders.  No one is arguing that isn't the case.  But those are in a longer time-frame and under more expansive circumstances. Those are not the same as an individual firefight lasting a few seconds between fresh, motivated forces with modern weapons.  That's what you typically have in a DW encounter. Of course there are exceptions.  I said "typically", which is not how you read it as an absolute.  Please also read the extra I wrote in as an edit, that helps explain the existance of the "firefight surrender". My point was that scaling it back is grounded in a "realistic" sense, but that ultimately it's more important to have something that is fun and fits the game. Quick and I over reacted.  I am now domoed from the sustained fire of this discussion, lol.  I'll just play now.
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 21, 2010, 10:14 am	Your demod ive been sitting in the loot screen for past 24 hrs.
JS Posted May 21, 2010, 10:44 am	*Grograt* said: Your demod  ive been sitting in the loot screen for past 24 hrs. Anything good?  I need a 10% standard tyre if you got one.
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted May 21, 2010, 10:48 am	JS said: *Grograt* said: Your demod  ive been sitting in the loot screen for past 24 hrs. Anything good?  I need a 10% standard tyre if you got one. Naaa just a lot of scrap metal, something to do with a new update *cough*
*sam* Posted May 21, 2010, 10:55 am	goat starer said: you are simply not following the 'its impossible to surrender in the middle of a battle' argument... it just is.  stopping firing is simply too risky as it could be a ruse... if there were some kind of flare system in place in evan (which would be weird.. this isnt supposed to be a sport!!!) do you really think some gangs wouldnt abuse it? I'm not stopping shooting just because a car sticks a white hanky out of a gun slit. You're actually explaining my exact thinking here, goat. Your enemy has 10 cars. 5 of them them claim to be surrendering. What's your response? : "Oh yeah, tell me another one, I'm not going to believe a word you say unless you *all* surrender and drop your weapons"
*sam* Posted May 21, 2010, 10:58 am	Honor First said: Sorry Sam, but the new code is really disheartening.  I only have a little time after work to play and it now takes twice as long as it used to and the risk vs. reward isn't balanced.  I ran a mail run with Palehorse today and we got ambushed by 11 cars (np there) but we had to kill every person in 10 of the cars (might have missed one to be sure) have two of them expode and the last car still didn't want to demo, it just ran away confident taking many turns to chase down.  We did get to take home a lot of scrap metal though.  There was a suggestion that any car running away could be allowed to escape on command of the squad owner, thereby shortening the event time. Would make sense here?
Karz Master Posted May 21, 2010, 11:28 am	*sam* said: There was a suggestion that any car running away could be allowed to escape on command of the squad owner, thereby shortening the event time. Would make sense here? Yes! It would make events where cars got stuck a lot more fun.
*Tinker* Posted May 21, 2010, 11:35 am	Yeah it's a great idea
Karz Master Posted May 21, 2010, 11:40 am	Been Mantis-ed before btw
FireFly Posted May 21, 2010, 11:48 am	*sam* said: goat starer said: you are simply not following the 'its impossible to surrender in the middle of a battle' argument... it just is.  stopping firing is simply too risky as it could be a ruse... if there were some kind of flare system in place in evan (which would be weird.. this isnt supposed to be a sport!!!) do you really think some gangs wouldnt abuse it? I'm not stopping shooting just because a car sticks a white hanky out of a gun slit. You're actually explaining my exact thinking here, goat. Your enemy has 10 cars. 5 of them them claim to be surrendering. What's your response? : "Oh yeah, tell me another one, I'm not going to believe a word you say unless you *all* surrender and drop your weapons" I guess thats true, I think more game than realism when it comes to these things. I guess what you could do is take my original suggestion, replace surrenders with "Escaping" and freaked out would instead become, well, freaked out, shooting anything that moves, complete state of panic. Because I have to say, "Freaked Out" characters follow orders way to well in darkwind, I'd imagine it would go more like "You want me to shoot that other car further away, no way in hell, I'm killing this one", but in a much more... uh, freaked out tone. In other words, you would lose partial control over freaked out vehicles (Until they calm down or go into escaping, depending on if their stress rises or drops) and total control over vehicles running away on the players side.
JS Posted May 21, 2010, 1:34 pm	Karz Master said: *sam* said: There was a suggestion that any car running away could be allowed to escape on command of the squad owner, thereby shortening the event time. Would make sense here? Yes! It would make events where cars got stuck a lot more fun. Brilliant.  I also had a thought that maybe there should be a 3rd stress level of surrender(resign) in the wilderness.  The car stops fighting.  Basically, these are cars that will be loot if the squad wins.  Not well fleshed out but that's the basic idea.
FireFly Posted May 21, 2010, 1:42 pm	JS, did you read that rather large suggestion I made 3 pages back
Honor First Posted May 21, 2010, 2:01 pm	*sam* said: Honor First said: Sorry Sam, but the new code is really disheartening.  I only have a little time after work to play and it now takes twice as long as it used to and the risk vs. reward isn't balanced.  I ran a mail run with Palehorse today and we got ambushed by 11 cars (np there) but we had to kill every person in 10 of the cars (might have missed one to be sure) have two of them expode and the last car still didn't want to demo, it just ran away confident taking many turns to chase down.  We did get to take home a lot of scrap metal though.  There was a suggestion that any car running away could be allowed to escape on command of the squad owner, thereby shortening the event time. Would make sense here? No it would not make sense here.  The part that I am having a problem with is that we killed ~18 NPCs and a Da Vinci ran away and didn't demo until we got within 130 meters.  The Da Vinci was only a small part of the problem.  The last vehicle that we redded was at the lead of a string of corpses and didn't stop firing until everyone in it was dead.  My problem is we brought 2 (mostly) unarmed lorries and 3 buzzers...not a mega scout by any stretch.  We fought very well and got the lorries very banged up, had one of our gangers bleeding out and demoed, one of the buzzers was getting pretty thin on armor and we brought home a DaVinci.  The risk vs. reward was not good.  If the DaVinci hadn't fallen in a hole and gotten left behind it was looking like it would have fought to the end.  I guess my issue is 1) a smallish scout shouldn't take hours 2) If i fight better than they do I shouldn't lose money or I need to open a mech shop in SS and get out of the business of fighting This game is fun! I enjoy logging on, smacking around some bad guys then going to bed.  I'm willing to deal with the children and the griefers because i get a chance at bringing home a buzzer on occasion.  I'm just saying that isn't that case the last couple of days.
Kornkob The Dude Posted May 21, 2010, 2:31 pm	That is a good point. In an effort to give long term serious players a challenge, the stress rules have created a situation where the 'beer and pretzel' game player can't really count on being able to come in, smash some bad guys and go away. I think that there's a segment of the community that wants that, and another segment that wants real risk and constant challenge. It would difficult to balance to 2 in a single game, much less a single game with a single underlying economy. The central question (and its a question we asked on every game I worked on) is what segment of the audience does Sam consider his core?
*Bastille* Posted May 21, 2010, 2:58 pm	Quote: My problem is we brought 2 (mostly) unarmed lorries and 3 buzzers...not a mega scout by any stretch. This is a reasonably small scout?! Mike has trained you all well. It takes me 2 hours to run a 2 apache scout sometimes lol I can also run a 10 minute solo car scout if I want a quickie. Ok I do understand time restraints, so for the attacking NPC squads, how about at spawn we can paint big red targets on the cars to shoot, and a couple marked Loot, then we all know which ones to shoot and can get it over with much quicker. And check that the there are no Zerkers in the cars you mark "Loot".
*sam* Posted May 21, 2010, 3:00 pm	Kornkob said: The central question (and its a question we asked on every game I worked on) is what segment of the audience does Sam consider his core? They're both core.. different towns, different NPC gangs with different fame/skill characteristics should make both viable. Honor said: No it would not make sense here.  The part that I am having a problem with is that we killed ~18 NPCs and a Da Vinci ran away and didn't demo until we got within 130 meters.  Can you give me an event ID? I'll check the game log. If there were about 25 NPCs total, they would have been receiving just over 50% of the "team stress" than they would have before. (This doesn't include stress due to personal injury and injury to guys in the same car, which hasn't changed). I did however fix a bug this morning that was causing escaped NPC characters to still count towards the "total team size" in this calculation. That will no longer be the case... did a few NPC cars escape during your event Honor?
Kornkob The Dude Posted May 21, 2010, 4:10 pm	*sam* said: Kornkob said: The central question (and its a question we asked on every game I worked on) is what segment of the audience does Sam consider his core? They're both core.. different towns, different NPC gangs with different fame/skill characteristics should make both viable. I have to say, that's not how it feels.  Since this change I'm coming back from a lot more 'I'll just do a quick SS scout' events feeling like it took longer and more people got more beat up than usual.  It feels like the risk has been amped up and the NPCs, even on smaller scouts (I don't think I've been on a Mega since this change), hang in longer and fight harder.  Now maybe that is perception and I've just had several 'bad roll' events in a row.  But I don't jump in to do a scout before bed anymore.
FireFly Posted May 21, 2010, 4:27 pm	Kornkob, the reason "Quick SS scouts" take so long because everyone insists on bringing Apaches, rear weapons, and the "Lets thin them out" plan. Ask some of the people I've done SS scouts with lately, its 5 - 10 vs 6 - 12, only takes about 30 min or so, and no, this is not because I use uber gangers or cars, its mostly muscle-cars and/or a big pickup, with 50 - 80 or so skilled people... In other words, people don't dogfight enough, in SS of all places, were its actually pretty doable. LoSboccacc said: also, it feels like everywhere else than somerset there is no such thing as a 'quick' scout for me to do. Well, that's because, outside of SS, "Quick" scouts are really never done, outside solo's
LoSboccacc Posted May 21, 2010, 4:29 pm	I agree with the dude. also, it feels like everywhere else than somerset there is no such thing as a 'quick' scout for me to do.
Kornkob The Dude Posted May 21, 2010, 6:17 pm	FireFly said: Kornkob, the reason "Quick SS scouts" take so long because everyone insists on bringing Apaches, rear weapons, and the "Lets thin them out" plan. What your comment overlooks is that I used the string them out with apache's plan before and after this change.  The thing that changed is how the NPCs react, not how the scout was conducted.
FireFly Posted May 21, 2010, 6:59 pm	Kornkob The Dude said: FireFly said: Kornkob, the reason "Quick SS scouts" take so long because everyone insists on bringing Apaches, rear weapons, and the "Lets thin them out" plan. What your comment overlooks is that I used the string them out with apache's plan before and after this change.  The thing that changed is how the NPCs react, not how the scout was conducted. I'm just saying, during my last SS scouts, it was very easy to get the enemy to demoralize, even without killing to much... That said, I got a skull cracked last scout, flamethrowers are a risky venture.
*goat starer* Posted May 21, 2010, 7:05 pm	JS said:       My point all along is that 50% is about the historical number where units give up, whether by fleeing or surrendering.  . and you have failed to produce one relevant example... where i have produced lots of relevant conter examples... so people can now decide for themselves!
*Tinker* Posted May 21, 2010, 7:43 pm	FireFly said: Kornkob The Dude said: FireFly said: Kornkob, the reason "Quick SS scouts" take so long because everyone insists on bringing Apaches, rear weapons, and the "Lets thin them out" plan. What your comment overlooks is that I used the string them out with apache's plan before and after this change.  The thing that changed is how the NPCs react, not how the scout was conducted. I'm just saying, during my last SS scouts, it was very easy to get the enemy to demoralize, even without killing to much... That said, I got a skull cracked last scout, flamethrowers are a risky venture. FF to be honest your dual HFT apaches burned the hell out of them, that's why they demoed... npc are scared of fire it seems
Groove Champion Posted May 21, 2010, 7:51 pm	Could this be the end of the "string 'em out" technique! I CERTAINLY HOPE SO!
Kornkob The Dude Posted May 21, 2010, 7:54 pm	FireFly said: I'm just saying, during my last SS scouts, it was very easy to get the enemy to demoralize, even without killing to much... That said, I got a skull cracked last scout, flamethrowers are a risky venture. No--what you said is that SS Scouts take a long time because of the vehicles and tactics used.  What I am clearly stating is: given that I have not changed my loadouts or tactics, since these changes it seems that scouts take longer and friendlies are coming back with more damage because the NPC stress behavior appears to make them fight longer.  And that this makes it harder for the 'beer and pretzel' player to slip in and join a multiplayer scout for a quick game.
FireFly Posted May 21, 2010, 8:11 pm	Kornkob The Dude said: FireFly said: I'm just saying, during my last SS scouts, it was very easy to get the enemy to demoralize, even without killing to much... That said, I got a skull cracked last scout, flamethrowers are a risky venture. No--what you said is that SS Scouts take a long time because of the vehicles and tactics used.  What I am clearly stating is: given that I have not changed my loadouts or tactics, since these changes it seems that scouts take longer and friendlies are coming back with more damage because the NPC stress behavior appears to make them fight longer.  And that this makes it harder for the 'beer and pretzel' player to slip in and join a multiplayer scout for a quick game.  Alright, I can see your point, just clarify this... What is your main style, focused fire on 1 enemy until it goes down or fire spread across several enemies at once, and is it "Run and spread the enemy" or "Engage at once"?
*Wolfsbane* Posted May 21, 2010, 8:28 pm	*Tinker* said: FF to be honest your dual HFT apaches burned the hell out of them, that's why they demoed... npc are scared of fire it seems That's always been the case.  Aiming 4 or 5 HFTs at an enemy is often enough to demo them even if you don't fire.  Fun tactic, if a bit risky.
Kornkob The Dude Posted May 21, 2010, 8:33 pm	--- moving my discussion of this topic to the thread in the Subscribers forum----
*Tinker* Posted May 21, 2010, 9:48 pm	The discussion has been moved here in the Subscriber section locking this thread to prevent reductant posts ??Reductant?? Redundent??