|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
5650
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 07:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Just a personal suggestion: Vehicles need to be completely redesigned from the ground up for Legion. I personally don't feel that the "redesign" of 1.7 was done as well as it could have. I'll elaborate.
The major issue we've -always- had in Dust 514 with vehicles:
The Role
In 1.7 the entire redesign philosophy was that "We want them to be fun", which is great and all but the best question you can ask toward that extent is: Why? What purpose do they serve, exactly? Are they for Force Projection? Are they for Point Defense? Are they for Logistics (the transportation type of logistics)?
This is the question that needs to be answered before proceeding with vehicles in Legion, and only after their role on the battlefield has been establish should it need to be further specified on with racial specializations; all the flare with all the arbitrary aesthetics, bells, and whistles which don't really matter because it's just fluff to make it cool and fun.
Which, having something cool and fun is great but if it doesn't provide something unique and functional to the game that isn't already being performed by another role then it's just going to cause issues, which in my opinion is exactly what happened with vehicles since the beginning. I feel it's the reason why they floundered back and forth between OP and UP; how do you balance something that is basically doing the same thing as everything else, just better..?
Optional Reading:
To provide an example: In Legion there's talks of Commandos fading out. Rightly so, because their "role" is more of a -specialization- that bleeds into the roles of the Sentinel (point defense) and Assault (frontline combat). Both roles are designed for slaying, just have different little flares to them whereas the Commando sort of got shoehorned in the center because... two light weapons are cool!
Back to vehicles. Here's the thing: CCP needs to decide (preferably before they go into Legion) what they need to do here. Enough with all the nuanced little things like how many turrets, how many slots, balancing, etc; what do vehicles provide that infantry can't already do? Slaying isn't a good answer, regardless of how fun and cool it is (can't stress that enough). If it starts to bleed into what infantry can already do, but vehicles can do it better, it just creates problems. Problems = wasted time, money, and resources to correct.
This isn't to say that vehicles don't belong in the game - just that they need have a legitimate, clear cut role that isn't amorphous and/or assumed by the players.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
5651
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 08:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Leeroy Gannarsein wrote:As an open beta tanker I agree 110%.
Last time I pointed this out people yelled at me :(
I want to have a purpose beyond 'kill the reds and stop enemy tanks from killing the reds', especially when that makes more sense as an infantry role...
Right right. Honestly, I think that once we have a clear goal in mind for what we wants vehicles to do it'd be a lot easier to develop and design them correctly.
Just as an example, if we want them [HAVs] to go Point Defense? Give them a siege mode and allow them to bunker down, go stationary for a minute and get some buffs. Few other games do this (Eve, Starcraft). If an HAV is temporary locked in place to receive his full potential, we have every excuse in the world to make them powerful when they do - but it's just a concept off the top of my head as an example.
There could be any number of things we could do with them once we've established what clear cut role they're supposed to play on the battlefield, but right now they're just a different playstyle in a sea of other playstyles that are all geared toward killing.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
5666
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:A general role that all vehicles follow would be insanely stupid. But I agree, each vehicle would need a general role to do, and its T II versions do it in another way.
Wouldn't be any more or less stupid than a difference between Assault and Logi. My primary concern is that vehicles (particularly HAVs) are reserved for either Transportation or Slaying, of which they do Slaying better than most other roles. Unfortunately, we have more roles dedicated to Slaying than anything else; so how do you balance out the risk vs reward of HAVs when they're basically just like everything else but with a 6000 HP Layer of defense that is immune to all but handful of weapons.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
5667
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:A general role that all vehicles follow would be insanely stupid. But I agree, each vehicle would need a general role to do, and its T II versions do it in another way.
Wouldn't be any more or less stupid than a difference between Assault and Logi. My primary concern is that vehicles (particularly HAVs) are reserved for either Transportation or Slaying, of which they do Slaying better than most other roles. Unfortunately, we have more roles dedicated to Slaying than anything else; so how do you balance out the risk vs reward of HAVs when they're basically just like everything else but with a 6000 HP Layer of defense that is immune to all but handful of weapons. It's not the same thing, as they are different sizes. As far as how should they do combat if they are combat oriented, they should have niches for each. For example, the HAV's. The Enforcer should be a ranged-style HAV that gets a bonus to its optimal range. a Marauder is a defensive-style HAV that gets to use a siege module, a module that boosts the power of repairers and boosters, nut either dramatically lowers it's top speed and acceleration (I'm talking 75% or more), or immobilizes it. The Black Ops could be a rapid reinforcement HAV being able to move a very small number of mercs (say half to a squad max) across a good distance, by using a sort of reverse uplink type thing. the T I HAV will be able to do all of those things, but worse than all of them. Enforcers would be great at sniping at vehicles, keeping them at a distance away from a target, Marauders would exel at holding the line, BO HAV's would be great at quick insertions and general stealth movement, and the T I HAV's could support these HAV's in doing those roles, as well as do the general work. However, they wouldn't be good at fighting infantry, as their main armament is a large turret, which is slow to turn and less accurate vs. a fast moving infantry target.
Yeah, see, you get it =P Basically just elaborated more on what the overall concept and goal is here.
Although, I would say that Black Ops is more of a thing for MAVs. A cloaked, ground-based vehicle that can hold an entire squad would be great if it sacrificed a hefty amount of offense/defensive capability. I'm not too beat up about specific bonuses ('x' amount to 'y' bonus), just the overall role that they're supposed to play. The numbers and stuff comes later on.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
5673
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Guys, please don't derail the thread. This isn't about making up new vehicles (MAVs/Fighters/what have you) or new weapons (medium turrets? for reals?)
The thread is about redesigning the vehicles -we already have-. Just saying, if we can't figure out a dedicated role for the vehicles we already have and are removing assets (Marauders/Enforcers/Black Ops/Logistics/Scout) then we have absolutely -NO- room to start conjuring up new stuff.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
5675
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Guys, please don't derail the thread. This isn't about making up new vehicles (MAVs/Fighters/what have you) or new weapons (medium turrets? for reals?)
The thread is about redesigning the vehicles -we already have-. Just saying, if we can't figure out a dedicated role for the vehicles we already have and are removing assets (Marauders/Enforcers/Black Ops/Logistics/Scout) then we have absolutely -NO- room to start conjuring up new stuff. 1: medium turrets are a real thing..........
In Eve, perhaps - not in Dust 514. Back on topic, please.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
5684
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Vehicles shouldn't be infantry killers. HAVs should have a very difficult, if not impossible, time killing infantry, at least with the main gun. They should kill other vehicles and they should kill installations. Installations need to have a bigger part in Legion.
Also, CCP should consider making HAVs either require or heavily favor multi-person use. Smaller vehicles should be used for solo play. Large vehicles should encourage team play.
Vehicles need a dedicated gameplay role. Destroying certain installations should be a heavy part of future game modes, so that tanks have their own job, as opposed to slaying.
Your post is hit and miss with me.
While, yes, I do agree that Vehicles need a dedicated gameplay role (I made the thread afterall), I certainly don't think they should be gimped into requiring team-play to utilize. It's wholly unnecessary and it should be a last resort if we can't figure out a way to balance them between vehicle vs infantry, which brings me to my next point: If vehicles are meant to kill other vehicles, then their entire role is completely arbitrary and there is absolutely no reason for them to be in the game other than to cancel one another out and **** the community off with their existence. Let alone a reason for AV to exist. If vehicles have a hard time killing infantry, then why worry about it in the first place?
They -CANNOT- solely be infantry killers but much in the same sense they -CANNOT- be solely vehicle killers. Role does not dictate specialization. Vehicles can have a generalized role with racial variations being focused, specialized toward a certain field at the expense of others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a tank being an infantry slayer if it has a ridiculously hard time countering other vehicles, this is just how the rock/paper/scissors meta works.
Force Projection, Point Defense, Logistics - are roles. Anti-Infantry, Installation Siege, Crowd Control, and Anti-Vehicular - are specializations.
It is very important not to get those two confused. LAVs were always used for fast transport (their role) but their meta started being used in an unintended way when they were nigh unkillable and could kill infantry just by touching them (last year's murder taxi epidemic). As a result, changes were made and now they fulfill the role as they should. Albeit, I would prefer them to be used for Infantry Suppression but the only way that is going to happen is if they offer more in line for the gunner to be defensible as it's just way too damn easy to shoot them out of the gunner seat (something I keep repeating that a turret shield would easily fix).
I hate to bring MOBA's into account but it's the only logical comparison point I can use just because MOBA's genuinely are role-based games that focus -solely- on balancing around those roles. Support characters, as an example, offer a wide range in the way of -how- they support, whether it be healing friendlies, buffs, debuffs or even crowd control elements <--- this allows them to specialize in a certain field that other support characters can't offer, but they're all part of the same role. Honestly, I think we could learn a lot from those types of games.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
6135
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 23:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Wonderful suggestions
My own personal view is that HAV should represent a platform for heavy fire power, by this I mean that I feel HAV should have a feeling of power about them but in the sense that when you fire your main cannon you feel like you are firing a weapon of titanic destructive potential, when you are struck by AV you should feel stunned by the forces that just hit you, and when you move you should feel like a rumbling engine of war.
This however is just from an immersive point of view which leads on to how I feel HAV should be. They should be vehicle and fortification busters IMO (but of course I am open to other suggestions).
I would prefer to see them presented in Legion as (with slot layouts to suggest progression)
Militia - Features 0SP requirements and features a general purpose lay out for introduction into the role
Soma- 2/2 Sica- 2/2 Mattock- 2/2 Disciple- 2/2
T1- Features Low SP investments and attunes the players to the racial groups primary combat style furthering the role of HAV
Madraugar 2/3 Gunlogi 3/2 (Nordic Sounding Name) - 4/1 Redeemer- 1/4
T2- High SP requirements and furthers specialises the HAV's main role in a unique racial combat style (bear in mind only 1 hull at T2 is really required for this per racial group...I just like listing options)
Surya/Vayu/Kubera 2/4 Sagaris/Falchion/Chakram 4/2 (More Impressive Sounding Nordic Name) 5/1 Seraph 1/5
Fitting slots are always an interesting topic but ultimately I don't think that they suggest any sort of role on the battlefield. Vehicle destruction, to me, sounds like an added bonus more than an actual role because inevitable it comes down to "countering the counter" style play - with HAVs being designed to kill other HAVs. Albeit, recently I've been reconsidering my thoughts on the whole "vehicles having a role" in favor of "vehicles having a specialization". Caldari could be really good at Siege Warfare (railguns/missiles), Gallente could be really good at Infantry Suppression/Force Multiplication, Minmatar perhaps being well-rounded with a lean toward Hit-and-Run style play, and Amarr being more privy toward Point Defense.
At which point the slots can be molded around the intended playstyle with opportunities for emergent gameplay. Just my thinking on it anyhow.
Useful Links
Aeon Amadi for CPM1
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
6137
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 01:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:True Adamance wrote:Wonderful suggestions
My own personal view is that HAV should represent a platform for heavy fire power, by this I mean that I feel HAV should have a feeling of power about them but in the sense that when you fire your main cannon you feel like you are firing a weapon of titanic destructive potential, when you are struck by AV you should feel stunned by the forces that just hit you, and when you move you should feel like a rumbling engine of war.
This however is just from an immersive point of view which leads on to how I feel HAV should be. They should be vehicle and fortification busters IMO (but of course I am open to other suggestions).
I would prefer to see them presented in Legion as (with slot layouts to suggest progression)
Militia - Features 0SP requirements and features a general purpose lay out for introduction into the role
Soma- 2/2 Sica- 2/2 Mattock- 2/2 Disciple- 2/2
T1- Features Low SP investments and attunes the players to the racial groups primary combat style furthering the role of HAV
Madraugar 2/3 Gunlogi 3/2 (Nordic Sounding Name) - 4/1 Redeemer- 1/4
T2- High SP requirements and furthers specialises the HAV's main role in a unique racial combat style (bear in mind only 1 hull at T2 is really required for this per racial group...I just like listing options)
Surya/Vayu/Kubera 2/4 Sagaris/Falchion/Chakram 4/2 (More Impressive Sounding Nordic Name) 5/1 Seraph 1/5 Fitting slots are always an interesting topic but ultimately I don't think that they suggest any sort of role on the battlefield. Vehicle destruction, to me, sounds like an added bonus more than an actual role because inevitable it comes down to "countering the counter" style play - with HAVs being designed to kill other HAVs. Albeit, recently I've been reconsidering my thoughts on the whole "vehicles having a role" in favor of "vehicles having a specialization". Caldari could be really good at Siege Warfare (railguns/missiles), Gallente could be really good at Infantry Suppression/Force Multiplication, Minmatar perhaps being well-rounded with a lean toward Hit-and-Run style play, and Amarr being more privy toward Point Defense. At which point the slots can be molded around the intended playstyle with opportunities for emergent gameplay. Just my thinking on it anyhow. Yes that is true. Slots do not designate the role. Its was merely to suggest progression. I am a proponent of tiering no matter what anyone says. Tiericide destroyed Tanking as it is today. I understand you wish to nail down an over arcing role of HAV...... but you really can't do that unless you consider T2 as specialised variations of that over arcing role. Personally while I like the idea of giving racial variances I do not like the suggestion that one race cannot fulfil the role of another. I do not like the idea of casting more racial sterotypes. All races should has a suit and a vehicle to fulfil its role, however that should be achieved in a different way. Summarising what I said. I am all for keeping Caldari as Heavy Shield Tankers, and Gallente as high fire power, Repping tankers. But I am against instituting a Caldari are the besieging race, Gallente are the generalists, Amarr do point defence.The issue I see is that this community gets the wrong idea about the races in their heads. Then they attempt to make balance arguments off of those ideals. most players don't know -Gallente also use Railguns - Amarrian Khanid ships fire missiles -The Amarr are a drone race - Minmatar are Alpha damage kings - ETC I see Marauders specialise in besieging. Enforces specialise in aggressive manoeuvres. Black Ops are more well rounded, or Point defenders. Then have each variant of tanks have their racial flavours.
Sure, Gallente do use Railguns but they're bonuses are geared toward Tracking and Damage - rather than Optimal Range. While racial stereotypes are exactly that, they also give players a pretty clear understanding as to what each race is all about, Gallente being close-range brawlers. Minmatar being Alpha Damage kings is about as Hit-and-Run as I can imagine, honestly.
It's all subjective and this sort of mentality isn't restricted to just vehicles - you see it in Infantry too. Amarr are slower, usually a bit more defensible as well, so it's only natural for them to fulfill the role of point defense. While it's entirely applicable to say that a specialized version of a vehicle can fulfill a certain role, racial plays a big factor in what each role and specialization is capable of and they should -not- be perfectly balanced.
Assuming that we stick with -just- HAVs, no specializations, it makes perfect sense to me that each race would use their HAVs for different things that compliment their racial combat style. To elaborate more, however, I'm completely against adding specializations like Marauders/Enforcers until we figure out what their base variants are supposed to be doing...
Useful Links
Aeon Amadi for CPM1
|
|
|
|