|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
   |
Posted - 2012.07.09 19:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sorry, I got stuck on him condemning the use of remote explosives as an in-a-pinch grenade (somewhat reasonable) and advocating its use for spawn-camping (REALLY?!). While not exactly conventional, it could work. The spawncamping, on the other hand, is 100% pure bullshit. By all means, mine choke points, but the spawn itself is ridiculous (and easily fixed, by not letting you place explosives within a radius of spawn-in points). Had exactly this happen yesterday, don't know how many remote explosives come with a loadout, but he used at least 10 to kill people trying to spawn at the only forward spawn. That's, quite simply, cheap, unreasonable, and unrealistic. FAR more unrealistic than throwing C4 at someone then triggering the detonator. You blow up the thing that people spawn out of, you don't just camp it for free kills (and they are free, since it's literally impossible to get out of the blast radius in time). |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.09 19:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Traynor Youngs wrote:Geirskoegul wrote:Sorry, I got stuck on him condemning the use of remote explosives as an in-a-pinch grenade (somewhat reasonable) and advocating its use for spawn-camping (REALLY?!). While not exactly conventional, it could work. The spawncamping, on the other hand, is 100% pure bullshit. By all means, mine choke points, but the spawn itself is ridiculous (and easily fixed, by not letting you place explosives within a radius of spawn-in points). Had exactly this happen yesterday, don't know how many remote explosives come with a loadout, but he used at least 10 to kill people trying to spawn at the only forward spawn. That's, quite simply, cheap, unreasonable, and unrealistic. FAR more unrealistic than throwing C4 at someone then triggering the detonator. You blow up the thing that people spawn out of, you don't just camp it for free kills (and they are free, since it's literally impossible to get out of the blast radius in time). There is no need to prevent placing explosives in spawn points since spawning in the same place is a known bug. Once they fix the spawn bug, everything will be fine.
Depends on the implementation of the fix, really. Either way, I'd support having destructible spawns and a hefty point reward for killing them, specifically to discourage spawn-camping. No spawn at all is better than spawn-camp-farming bullshit. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.09 19:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Traynor Youngs wrote:Geirskoegul wrote:Traynor Youngs wrote:Geirskoegul wrote:Sorry, I got stuck on him condemning the use of remote explosives as an in-a-pinch grenade (somewhat reasonable) and advocating its use for spawn-camping (REALLY?!). While not exactly conventional, it could work. The spawncamping, on the other hand, is 100% pure bullshit. By all means, mine choke points, but the spawn itself is ridiculous (and easily fixed, by not letting you place explosives within a radius of spawn-in points). Had exactly this happen yesterday, don't know how many remote explosives come with a loadout, but he used at least 10 to kill people trying to spawn at the only forward spawn. That's, quite simply, cheap, unreasonable, and unrealistic. FAR more unrealistic than throwing C4 at someone then triggering the detonator. You blow up the thing that people spawn out of, you don't just camp it for free kills (and they are free, since it's literally impossible to get out of the blast radius in time). There is no need to prevent placing explosives in spawn points since spawning in the same place is a known bug. Once they fix the spawn bug, everything will be fine. Depends on the implementation of the fix, really. Either way, I'd support having destructible spawns and a hefty point reward for killing them, specifically to discourage spawn-camping. No spawn at all is better than spawn-camp-farming bullshit. Intended Spawn Mechanic: You spawn in some random area around the spawn point and not always in the same place. The area is supped to be some radius from the point big enough to be "un camp able" Except for drop uplinks, which I think is supposed to be right on top of it every time. Destroying CRU's is not a bug, thats just smart gameplay.
I agree about the CRUs, I'm saying I'd be fine with ALL points you can spawn at having something physical you spawn at, like the tubes in PlanetSide. I say give their destruction a high point value to encourage destroying them, rather than camping there and farming the people spawning in them, like failnubs would often do in PlanetSide. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 06:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Da Lancer wrote:Another solution could be a trick from killzone mulitplayer: when choosing spawn points you get a camera near the area showing you how much fighting is going on near there, also giving the player a visual way to see a enemy bombing up your spawn. If you are trying to spawn at a heavly contested spawn, you should know the risk you are putting yourself in!
No, no, no, NOOOO. No free intel. Period. Anywhere. You want intel? Gather it. The system you propose is like what the Consu believe in "Old Man's War." Let's kill off one of our guys, then his ghost can go check out these other locations and report back what it sees. Wounds familiar, right? Because it's exactly the risk-free intel you're suggesting.
No intel that isn't earned, no killcams, no spawncams, no automatic, free identification of exact suit models / tiers (other than, MAYBE overall class such as pilot/heavy/scout/assault/etc.
Earn your intel.
Dalton Smithe wrote:bjorn morkai wrote:Seeker of Cheese wrote:There's a quick test for tactics: Did it work? Then it's the correct way to use it. no no no no no thats not how tactics work. take a lesson from the 40k universe: "if your plan is working, its a trap." "the most dangerous thing on the field is a junior officer with a compass and a map" "incoming fire has the right of way" "fight battles that are small enough to win, but large enough to matter" "attack is the only order worth remembering" "everyone has a soft spot. its right under your chin and its called your neck." "if all else fails, waive your hands above your head, run around in little circles and begin screaming." there, you are now fully capable of fighting. Actually that comes from some time before 40k, its murphy's law of combat...
Also from Skippy's List and Schlock Mercenary. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 12:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
Daionnis Magnifico wrote:Geirskoegul wrote:No, no, no, NOOOO. No free intel. Period. Anywhere. You want intel? Gather it. The system you propose is like what the Consu believe in "Old Man's War." Let's kill off one of our guys, then his ghost can go check out these other locations and report back what it sees. Wounds familiar, right? Because it's exactly the risk-free intel you're suggesting.
No intel that isn't earned, no killcams, no spawncams, no automatic, free identification of exact suit models / tiers (other than, MAYBE overall class such as pilot/heavy/scout/assault/etc.
Earn your intel.
Easily fixable by making it so dead teammate can't talk over comms.
1) That only works if when you die once, you're out for the remainder of the match, otherwise it just means you report the intel 12 seconds later (allowing 2 seconds to select spawnpoint and loadout).
2) That would only serve to cause squads to set laptops next to them and use Mumble or TS with voice activation turned on.
Your solution only actually "works" in games like ArmA2, when playing entirely within (and against!) a group of FRIENDS whose focus is on realism and immersion. Any other situation will simply cause people to make the call that is most advantageous to them.
Grit Breather wrote:I am totally for the ideas behind this post and some of the replys. However, some of what's been said here is just rubbish.
I'll summarise like this.
For starters, anything that works as a tactic is valid. If something is being used that is not supposed to be used, it's not balanced and of course it'll get abused. Look at real life choppers. They aren't used in battle to squish people. They don't run you over as a battle tactic.
Why? Many reasons.
For starters, killing a single soldier on the battlefield won't help anyone. Battles aren't about K/D. Battles are about objectives and the final outcome (usually leading to the next battle). Choppers are so busy carrying out objectives that they just don't have the time to deal with infantry work.
Now back to the game. Why is squishing a good tactic? Because it works.
Why does it work? Have you ever tried squishing someone with a real chopper? It's amazingly stupid. It would either be so slow (as to avoid self damage) that anyone with half a brain would actually move out of the way. Or it would be so destructive to the chopper that it wouldn't be able to take off again. I'm guessing the crew would even be tossed out of the vehicle upon impact.
So no. Dropship squishings don't need to be nerfed. They need to be balanced. A pilot needs to understand that hitting the ground fast has grave consequences.
Those are my 2 cents.
And that's basically my point, and I said as much in one of my earlier posts in this or another thread. Simply increase the impact damage that dropships receive. Very quickly you'll see people avoiding hitting things (go figure.) That said, we need to increase the impact damage to infantry by tanks and jeeps, because as it stands, it's way too light (or seems it). The only time I've had one hurt me was while I was hacking a terminal and he literally crushed me between the terminal and his jeep, then drove off again.
Though that actually raises another issue, since the jeeps seem to be incapable of receiving environmental damage. In a tank, if I bump into a pillar 2 meters behind me, starting from a dead stop, i take damage (1-5% armour on the soma with a DCU). Meanwhile I was flying all over the place, slamming into things, and generally behaving like a drunken squirrel that's just snorted an 8-ball, and it doesn't even touch the shields. Seems kinda backwards, don't you think? haha
|
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 23:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
TabbieKat wrote:Some of you have gotten why I have done this post and others did not. If you actually spend the time to read my two previous posts I am attempting to NOT get stuffed nurfed. Using remote explosives as a pinch grenade is fine but I have seen people only use it because it is an easy kill. If this keeps up people will complain about it. The more people that complain about it will equal Nurf. I do not want to see the damage or the blast radius get nurfed because it was overused for easy kills.
As for Dropships, yes landing on someone in this game is easy to do and I have done it myself. But i also do not go around looking for people to squish. Either i do it when i am taking off, trying to sweep people off of a tower, or trying to get rid of a pesky guy on a tower shooting at me while i wait for people to gun for me. People getting Dropships and squishing people all the time will result in the crushing damage being nurfed. In the new Communications Map I see the drop ship being used like it should be as air support. Annoying as all hell when the Dropship is on the other team but ehh shoot it down... or try , and/or get your own. They still squish people but not very often.
You don't know CCP that well if you think whinging is sufficient to get them to ruin their game. Taking a look at EVE, they've made some extremely unpopular changes, that were in fact to the great benefit of the game (one of the biggest I can think of is the big nano nerf a few years back.) Their focus is on making an awesome game, not appeasing the whiners. That strategy has made them the only MMORPG in the three-decade history of the genre that has shown consistent growth for even HALF as long as they have, and they show no signs of peaking.
If they nerf something, expect it to be the reasons or ability to misuse something (for example, allowing us to cook grenades, and making their behavior more consistent and predictable), rather than nerfing that something as a band-aid fix. Nerfs and buffs without thought to balance or consequences are more a SOE and Actiblizzion thing. CCP is very much hands-off, and they only make large changes where there's a legitimate need for the good of the game, whether that change will be popular at first or not. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 23:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
TabbieKat wrote:no whining here as i can see you do not understand. things work but when people over use things because it makes it easy to win and generally pisses off the other people will get things nurfed. not whining at all just warning. if you like the RE and the Dropship squishing you with either agree that they are being overused and you do not want them nurfed, or you will say i am an idiot for warning you before the flood. As for the people that hate them either they will say they need to be nurfed or taken out because they are too powerful or if they were toned down a bit they really work well in the game.
All in all I think they work well, add in Friendly Fire and a Penalty though either ISK and or SP for killing your own people and that will make them more strategic.
Again, it's you that doesn't seem to understand. CCPs general strategy is to let people figure out how to counter it. If there isn't a counter, they might make small tweaks to introduce a viable counter. If something truly is broken, they'll make the change necessary, regardless of if it's popular or not.
The fixes to the "issues" listed here are simple: randomize spawns (or provide physical spawn devices at all spawnable areas with a strong point incentive to kill them rather than farm them), make normal grenades better (allow cooking, and make their behavior more consistent and predictable), and increase the impact damage received by jeeps and dropships that crash into people and objects.
These are all good balance fixes, and are not really buffs or nerfs, simply tweaking them to bring them more in line with how they SHOULD be, and encourage normal gameplay.
You're letting your experience with other companies shade your perspective. Arbitrary buffs and nerfs, consequences be damned, are the territory of Actiblizzion, SOE, and similar. CCP avoids big changes like the plague, and nothing they do is a knee-jerk. They always have an eye to the consequences.
SP and ISK penalties for teamkilling aren't just broken and ********, but completely fly in the face of what this universe is. Betrayal is a part of the game. You're jumping on a knee-jerk solution, as opposed to smaller, more subtle changes, to guide player behavior in line with intended gameplay. My suggestions do this; yours do not. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
TabbieKat wrote:Well Geirskoegul lets agree to disagree, yes I have found counters and i know adding friendly fire damage to the game will stop people from just throwing RE's willy nilly. I also know if they increase the Draw Distance for Dropships this will also keep people from just popping out of no where and squishing you. As for the penalty thing, yes I do get this is a game that supports a "I will do what I want when I want" mentality and I like that. Maybe when they add corporations into the game "player ones not the default ones" the people in charge of it will get an option to penalize members for killing people on their side as it hurts their bottom line. Just saying this is all Knee-Jerk reactions is not right. Yes I have played other games and while CCP owns this game they are partnered with SOE to bring you this game.
I get what you are saying and I understand and I am glad to know you trust CCP enough to see the next few squares ahead to get a broader picture of what is going on. I really do understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I respect your opinion on the game as a whole and I hope you respect mine, because without respect I will just say, (to quote Adam Savage) "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
Working closely with SOE is not the same as partnered. One of the reasons it became PS3 exclusive is that MSFT was unwilling to let CCP do things their way. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:11:00 -
[9] - Quote
TabbieKat wrote:Geirskoegul wrote:
Working closely with SOE is not the same as partnered. One of the reasons it became PS3 exclusive is that MSFT was unwilling to let CCP do things their way.
They have a business contract with them so that CCP has the use of the PS3 as a medium to get their game out, while they control the game they do not control the PS3 ie a partnership over rights. Also while CCP can control what they sell on the market, SOE gets a profit off of them using it. Now is it a 50/50 contract, no. CCP reserves the creative rights to Dust 514 while SOE reserves the rights of their programming. If you really want to get technical, Unreal owns the game seeing as they are using their engine to run it. If Unreal felt they were not getting the contract fulfilled with them they could kill Dust in two seconds. They are contractual partners, Sony has giving Unreal the codes for the PS3 to adjust their engine to be usable on the PS3 and Unreal has allowed CCP to use their PS3 version of the Unreal Engine to make Dust. Sony has allowed CCP to use the PS3 as a platform and though contracts that both companies feel benefits both of them, Dust is a reality. All people that are working with CCP to make Dust are partners though contracts. Now as to how much creative licence is given SOE in Dust, I do not know and i know "unless you have read the contract" do not know either. They may have control over parts or none at all. Yes EVE is a big success but so is WoW. OMG OMG Tabbie said WoW. EVE is for the more sophisticated and older player were as WoW is geared to the Younger crowd. Where Dust sits is to be determined at the moment.
Were the terms of engine licensing as ridiculous as you imply, no one would license an engine. What you describe sounds like what Oracle was trying to do with anything written in or for Java: "use our APIs, we own you."
What you say seems to describe the deal Sony has with anyone else. CCP would appear to have full control and discretion over Dust, within the standard rules for any software on the PS3. I don't see anything indicating that SOE would have the power to force CCP to make detrimental changes to the game in violation of their previous history and behaviour when it comes to handling balancing their games. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
I think I'll take that as a compliment? heh
And no, never did debate team, but I do follow things I find interesting. I'm also highly active on the Ars Technica forums, and whenever subjects like global warming, software patents, copyright, etc. come up, trolls and other ignorant individuals show up in force. Arguing a point on here is cakewalk compared to there (and requires far less sourcing, since here it's usually just a matter of logic and explaining things; there I actually have to find the scientific proof to shut up the idiots, or at least to be able to do so while calling them out for baseless assertions that credible sources CAN"T be found for.)
It's further exacerbated by the fact that I'm taking a writing and a public speaking course at the moment, and I'm currently working on the persuasive research paper and persuasive speech for the two respectively, heh. Kinda already has me in debate mode (4.0 GPA so far in all my classes, not bad considering the last time I was in school was the better part of a decade ago, and i'm working full time while I'm doing this haha). |
|
|
|
|
| |
|