Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reav Hannari
Red Rock Outriders
959
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
Shokhann Echo wrote:... then I would say that forge gunners should require 2 people to operate them, one player to carry ammunition and the other to use the weapon (not fair you say? you skilled into that weapon and deserve to use it on your own you say? too f***ing bad, if he need others to operate a single weapon then so do you) ...
This is a very good point. Forge guns are causing havoc to both vehicles and infantry. Ammo could be reduced to pretty much require standing on a nanohive to be of any use. But, most times I've seen them dominating there was a Logistics there dropping hives for them. They could also require more nanite clusters per forge shot so that hives don't last very long.
Maybe add more travel time to the ball of plasma so that long range shots are harder to place on moving vehicles. It doesn't have to be much but enough to require more player skill.
|
Shokhann Echo
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:28:00 -
[32] - Quote
Justin Tymes wrote:Blaze Ashra wrote:You know there are 2 other types of vehicles in dust 514. The AV shouldn't be an auto win on vehicles and vehicles shouldn't be an auto win against infantry but all the vehicles should have relatively similar survivability when facing each other or AV. THe AV should be auto-win against vehicles, because that's what they were designed to do. If I lay a down proto-AV mines in one spot, they are useless for any other purpose other than AV, and those mines instantly let the vehicle user know where they are, they should auto-win against tanks and LLAV when they roll over them, not just chip on their shields. Same goes for swarms and AV nades that are working as intended right now, because they are useless for an other purpose.
if that's the case then HAVs should be the most dominant weapon able to be used and the most power item in the game, and its not, so no |
Telleth
DUST University Ivy League
103
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:38:00 -
[33] - Quote
I think the big problem with AV vs vehicles (can't forget the LAV's and dropships) is the inability to counter the high alpha damage from a lot of the AV. Forge guns and AV nades mostly.
It's hard to balance current AV vs vehicles right now because of the large difference in hp's between vehicles, but the same AV being used against all vehicles.
While the capacitor/engagement time idea does sound pretty good, and would make this section of the game much more intricate, it also sounds very difficult to balance properly, particularly when new vehicles/AV come out.
How about something along the lines of signature radius from EVE. Each vehicle would have its own signature radius, and each weapon would deal damage based off of that sig radius. This allows balancing of AV against each individual vehicle instead of all of them as a whole. This could also add in a layer of EWAR into vehicles that could be built upon in the future, such as sig reducing and sig effect reducing modules and skills.
HAV balance is pretty close to where it should be at the moment, maybe toning down forge shots on them just a little. I think the major point of contention is the price of both learning to use them and of using a fully kitted out tank are a bit high. Halving the price on turrets would probably do the trick there.
LAV balance is a bit tougher, a standard one is fairly easy, but kinda should be,and a LLAV is kinda excessive to take down. Keep the LAV about where it is at, and the LLAV should accelerate a bit slower, have a bit higher signature than a standard LAV, with their primary weakness being to AV nades, about 3 would be right. Might be a way to work plasma cannons into here as well. SLAV's... I dunno, I've only seen one used in a match, never used one myself... But imagine a low signature would be appropriate.
Dropships, this is where I feel like a good amount of attention should be paid. Currently I've noticed that whenever I die in one, mostly it's to a forge gun. The high single shot damage and quick rate of fire compared to how quick a dropship can leave an area they are operating in just eliminates dropships. I think a lower signature/effect felt from forge guns would give them a fighting chance. Though a price reduction on turrets would go a long way too.
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
7350
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
Well signature radius could be a tool as well into the combat endurance and engagement time. Ie activating afterburners or sensors makes you easier to hit/lock by others. Increasing your signature radius to gain an advantage carries the risk of greatly lowering your window as a pilot. This is how it works in the real world most often.
During Gulf War 1, there was only 1 incident of a old world russian tank mission killing an abrams. The only reason why this tank got the lucky hit was it was offline at the time and was not generating any sensory noise whatsoever during a night attack. The gunnery crew loaded the gun, eyeballed the target and fired, striking the abrams to the side forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle. The abrams and crew was later recovered and repaired to full service, the offending tank and mostly every other tank in the division it belonged to got just simply annihilated. This is the only ground to ground vehicle incident and example I can remember. Sub to surface, sub to sub, Air to air and air to ground has far many more examples I could use. |
Shokhann Echo
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:47:00 -
[35] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Well signature radius could be a tool as well into the combat endurance and engagement time. Ie activating afterburners or sensors makes you easier to hit/lock by others. Increasing your signature radius to gain an advantage carries the risk of greatly lowering your window as a pilot. This is how it works in the real world most often.
During Gulf War 1, there was only 1 incident of a old world russian tank mission killing an abrams. The only reason why this tank got the lucky hit was it was offline at the time and was not generating any sensory noise whatsoever during a night attack. The gunnery crew loaded the gun, eyeballed the target and fired, striking the abrams to the side forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle. The abrams and crew was later recovered and repaired to full service, the offending tank and mostly every other tank in the division it belonged to got just simply annihilated. This is the only ground to ground vehicle incident and example I can remember. Sub to surface, sub to sub, Air to air and air to ground has far many more examples I could use.
this isn't real life, or earth. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
I say, divide tanks between high attack and high defense models. Give unlimited ammo and higher speed to the damage models, and let the slower defensive models have better armor, resistances, and health. Why should I, a defensive oriented player, have to suffer because other players were overpowered in the past? People who want to play a protective role in this game deserve better options. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
7350
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:54:00 -
[37] - Quote
Shokhann Echo wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Well signature radius could be a tool as well into the combat endurance and engagement time. Ie activating afterburners or sensors makes you easier to hit/lock by others. Increasing your signature radius to gain an advantage carries the risk of greatly lowering your window as a pilot. This is how it works in the real world most often.
During Gulf War 1, there was only 1 incident of a old world russian tank mission killing an abrams. The only reason why this tank got the lucky hit was it was offline at the time and was not generating any sensory noise whatsoever during a night attack. The gunnery crew loaded the gun, eyeballed the target and fired, striking the abrams to the side forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle. The abrams and crew was later recovered and repaired to full service, the offending tank and mostly every other tank in the division it belonged to got just simply annihilated. This is the only ground to ground vehicle incident and example I can remember. Sub to surface, sub to sub, Air to air and air to ground has far many more examples I could use. this isn't real life, or earth.
No no no, Real Life is great for inspiration of game mechanics, specifically not good for balance however.
Sensors generally work in two modes. Passive and Active.
Passives just soak up the local surroundings and use that to feed you information. Example on human body is your ears. Your ears are unable to do anything but passively listen.
Active sensors use a method to reach out and measures what that reach did. Shouting for someone however gives your own position away to anyone else running passive.
This has been oftenly used in cat and mouse like games in just about every sort of modern warfare, including navy warfare which is the most mindful of science fiction needs of a 360 x 360 spherical battlefield.
What if you can break a missile lock by simply turning off your tacnet? Throw an active scanner decoy onto the field that takes the heat while helping you out? Forcing a HAV's shielding to reverberate to make it loud enough on sensors that an eve online ship pilot can pick up and send a single shell down onto that target where previously the eve pilot was blind to that tank being there because of the topside paint. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
7350
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
Our Deepest Regret wrote:I say, divide tanks between high attack and high defense models. Give unlimited ammo and higher speed to the damage models, and let the slower defensive models have better armor, resistances, and health. Why should I, a defensive oriented player, have to suffer because other players were overpowered in the past? People who want to play a protective role in this game deserve better options.
My point is that the HAVs should have the strongest combat endurance and widest window capabilities, with proper infantry escort the hostile AVs would have a very hard time forcing that window wider. A nearby logi could de-arm the web mines, assault players killing AV armed players. That the only things tanks would be really vulnerable to is getting caught alone or during its cool off period while it recharges and restocks. |
LUGMOS
YELLOW JESUS EXP FORCE
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 03:11:00 -
[39] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Our Deepest Regret wrote:I say, divide tanks between high attack and high defense models. Give unlimited ammo and higher speed to the damage models, and let the slower defensive models have better armor, resistances, and health. Why should I, a defensive oriented player, have to suffer because other players were overpowered in the past? People who want to play a protective role in this game deserve better options. My point is that the HAVs should have the strongest combat endurance and widest window capabilities, with proper infantry escort the hostile AVs would have a very hard time forcing that window wider. A nearby logi could de-arm the web mines, assault players killing AV armed players. That the only things tanks would be really vulnerable to is getting caught alone or during its cool off period while it recharges and restocks.
Great points, but you would need a sniper to kill long rang forge gunners and swarms. IMO swarms shouldn't have as much range as they have now, Forges are supposed to be the long range. Also, you could is sibyl add a breach forge effect on the swarms, where you can't move, or you move slower and can't jump. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 03:12:00 -
[40] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote: My point is that the HAVs should have the strongest combat endurance and widest window capabilities, with proper infantry escort the hostile AVs would have a very hard time forcing that window wider. A nearby logi could de-arm the web mines, assault players killing AV armed players. That the only things tanks would be really vulnerable to is getting caught alone or during its cool off period while it recharges and restocks.
That sounds really involved for 16 v. 16 gameplay. I'm a simple guy, I like the idea of tradeoffs. Want High defense? Then accept low speed and damage. Want high damage and speed? Then accept lower defense and health. That's sustainable game design. Why make this complex? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |