DUST Search - Vehicles in 1.5 and beyond!

Gabriella Grey wrote:

Skihids wrote:

Gabriella Grey wrote:

I like the Idea stated above about releasing the other vehicle race variants, but the Eve capacitors only work for the ship itself mostly. You can run out of rockets, and other ammunition, with the exception of Amarr, if CCP has plans of coming out with Amarr turrets in the future. I think having a capacitor on the ground would make vehicle use much more difficult for new players, unless they make them really not a big deal, and have them in the game just for the sake of having them.

The current cool-down system is far more clunky and confusing than a capacitor based system.

Let's reverse things for a moment and give infantry movement a cool-down mechanism for comparison.

When you want to run you activate your sprint module, then deactivate it and wait for the cool-down before you can sprint again. How in the world is that easier to use or understand than stamina which is just another word for "body capacitor"?

The modules already work in a way like a capacitor, and doesn't need to be changed. Eve has it where modules have this similar cool down effect, and having a re-scripting of code for a specific button to be assigned this in the relation to a sprint button, would limit what you could really use in module slots, unless they come out with remapping and spend more time working on trying to follow other types of games. I think CCP has something very unique going on here, and should not change certain things in relations of the controls to work similar to other games, example, call of duty etc. Though I am not saying your suggestion is a bad, one and respect it, I just don't think its something needed to make a serious impact and simplicity that they are trying to accomplish across all vehicles. Big smile


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1954	Posted - 2013.08.27 16:21:00 - [1] - Quote Others have done a good job commenting on the details, but I'd like to take a look at the overall philosophy of vehicles that this patch reveals. Vehicles: 1) Won't get unique roles and will continue to compete directly with infantry for the mission of slaying infantry. 2) Will continue to be solo player focused, even more so with the removal of small turrets. 3) Will be the equivalent of "Burst mode" dropsuits where one player briefly becomes super strong, but then has to run away and hide for an extended period of time. I suppose it's a consequence of not having any game mode more complex than TDM, but the lack of roles that only vehicles can fill makes them a mere accessory. They become a more expensive and riskier version of a dropsuit and are totally optional. I think this is one of the biggest missed opportunities to add complexity and depth to the game. As long as the only reason to drop a vehicle rather than run in a suit is "because I want to", they will be balanced strength and capability wise against a single infantry unit, and that is simply too limiting. These changes make piloting much more complex while placing the entire burden on the lone pilot. Task overload is pretty sure to follow, especially with the clumsy activation mechanism. I'm a private pilot with an instrument rating and I know quite a bit about workload management. There's a reason commercial flights require a co-pilot, and there's a reason real tanks have multiple crew members. There is frequently too much for one person to do right when the crap hits the fan. It feels like CCP is throwing away a great chance to differentiate DUST from other shooters in the way it handles vehicles. If they are going to be balanced in capability with a single dropsuit fitting, then they will have to priced accordingly. That basically makes them another sidegrade of dropsuit rather than a unique role.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1954	Posted - 2013.08.27 16:34:00 - [2] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Beren Hurin wrote: What if you could only deploy certain vehicles from supply depots? They have that deployment option that nobody ever uses...? I remember in codex that was the worst possible option: the deployment system was weird, so the RDV would put the vehicle directly on top of the supply depot. I personally think that the non-depot deployment should be slow again, while deploying from a supply depot is nearly instant. There is no reason for a Depot to have a vehicle deployment option unless it is responsible for creating the vehicle. Otherwise it's just a TacNet call to the WB, and why go through a third party to make the call?
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1955	Posted - 2013.08.27 17:22:00 - [3] - Quote Nguruthos IX wrote: Does this mean no more vehicles in ambush (No supply depots for ammo)? If so There's no reason to fly Skirm/Dom in this game with all the Red Line Rail tanks, Redline Rail installations, and the terrible ISK payout for such long and dangerous games. Add to that MCC missiles 1 shotting Dropships and RDV's still spawning around everywhere and remind me again why I should play at all, as a pilot? Until CCP gives you a unique mission for your dropship the simple answer is that there no reason to fly and every reason not to. - The dropship is highly visible and thus under near constant threat from AV. - The dropship will now be dependent on active defenses with long cooldowns. - The majority of dropships are pretty slow to get into position given the nerf to handling so most of your active defense time will be spent inserting and then exiting the battle. So most of your time will be spent out of battle. Now if CCP were to create a real dropship only mission, like say troop spotting, you might just be valuable. With a redsigned scanner and WP's to go with it you would be able to make scanning passes to assist your team and wouldn't automatically attract AV fire due to being an immediate life threat.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1955	Posted - 2013.08.27 17:25:00 - [4] - Quote Ted Nugget wrote: After reading this. I still don't think I want to spec into vehicles again. If I get a respec that is. In the end if you make tanks usable people will cry that tanks are killing them until you nerf them to crap. I am not spec'n into something when it good for it to be nerfed to **** again. Infantry bound.... maybe my Saga II as well This will be the case until tanks don't compete directly with suits for the role of slaying suits. Nobody likes competition and most everyone hates being killed by a weapon system that they don't use. As long as tanks have the same job as suits they will be balanced against a suit and AR combination.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1955	Posted - 2013.08.27 17:37:00 - [5] - Quote Needless Sacermendor wrote: Skihids wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: Does this mean no more vehicles in ambush (No supply depots for ammo)? If so There's no reason to fly Skirm/Dom in this game with all the Red Line Rail tanks, Redline Rail installations, and the terrible ISK payout for such long and dangerous games. Add to that MCC missiles 1 shotting Dropships and RDV's still spawning around everywhere and remind me again why I should play at all, as a pilot? Until CCP gives you a unique mission for your dropship the simple answer is that there no reason to fly and every reason not to. - The dropship is highly visible and thus under near constant threat from AV. - The dropship will now be dependent on active defenses with long cooldowns. - The majority of dropships are pretty slow to get into position given the nerf to handling so most of your active defense time will be spent inserting and then exiting the battle. So most of your time will be spent out of battle. Now if CCP were to create a real dropship only mission, like say troop spotting, you might just be valuable. With a redsigned scanner and WP's to go with it you would be able to make scanning passes to assist your team and wouldn't automatically attract AV fire due to being an immediate life threat. Dropships could easily be adjusted with a bonus to all module cooldowns (for example) or relevant shield or armor modules, giving them the extra defensive abilities they need ... it's a simple option that could work. It doesn't matter. As long as the mission of the dropship is to slay infantry it will always be a more complicated and risky tool than just running in a suit. It's more expensive, it's far more visible, and it can't be any better than a suit or it will be declared OP (compared to the suit which will be a valid point). The dropship needs missions that infantry can't perform or it will be forever balanced against a single dropsuit.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1955	Posted - 2013.08.27 17:46:00 - [6] - Quote CCP's vehicle design philosophy is that suits and vehicles compete directly for the same mission of slaying mercs. As long as the vehicle is a solo asset it has to be balanced against its competition, the suit. How are they doing that while not turning them into suits? They are making them into "burst mode" suits. Some of the time they can be more powerful than suits, but most of the time they will be weaker. Time spent stronger + Time spent more vulnerable = Capability and survivability of a dropsuit. Vehicle pilots are already complaining about the significant downtime required by this balancing act because it's no fun to sit out the majority of the match.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1956	Posted - 2013.08.27 17:54:00 - [7] - Quote Needless Sacermendor wrote: Yeah it primarily needs wp for troop transport ... it's main purpose ! In it's simplest form x wp for each passenger carried over x distance ... but it would need restraints to avoid farming. The problem with that is several elements of the game have to change to make it useful for troop transport. Once in battle it's so easy to spawn on an objective or DU. Who wants to wait at a bus stop for the next dropship to happen by to pick them up? Folks will either hoof it or call in a cheap LAV rather than wait. The only benefit a dropship has is to drop a full squad on a contested objective all at once. I can see becoming actively unkillable for the length of time required for an insertion would be a very good thing. Right now any decent team in PC is going to field a FG to prevent such an attack, but with these changes it may be possible. Maps might have to change to make that a better plan of attack than running on the ground. I can see Objective A on Manus Peak being a good example of an objective that is fairly difficult to assault on foot.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1956	Posted - 2013.08.27 18:14:00 - [8] - Quote Needless Sacermendor wrote: Skihids wrote: Some of the time they can be more powerful than suits, but most of the time they will be weaker. Time spent stronger + Time spent more vulnerable = Capability and survivability of a dropsuit. Vehicle pilots are already complaining about the significant downtime required by this balancing act because it's no fun to sit out the majority of the match. The part they don't seem to understand is that right now they have the 'stonger than infantry' part but are ALWAYS weak against AV (mostly due to lack of proto) ... what this rebalance is trying to achieve is during their 'stronger' window they will be practically invulnerable to equal level AV, but they won't be able to sustain that for long periods without having to retreat during their more vulnerable cooldowns. They will still likely have matches with lower skilled AV or none at all where they can even survive through their cooldowns, or other matches where they are up against stronger AV or more AV numbers and won't be able to survive a heavy onslaught even during their 'stronger' period. But that's how balance works, so long as it's equally possible to sway in both directions. It's good that they aren't balancing them passive to passive (which is the only thing available to suits), or they would have to effectively BE suits which is how it is today. I suppose you could classify siege mode as a role unique to vehicles in as far as assaulting heavily defended objectives is very difficult without them. This could work out if done right, but it's going to require teamwork that is a lacking outside the corp squad level in pubs. I'd also like to see logistics roles for the dropship so they are good for more than squad insertion. Tanks are going to require a whole lot more support now and that opens up many opportunities.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1959	Posted - 2013.08.27 18:51:00 - [9] - Quote Kage Roth wrote: I still want a stasis webifier deployable to equip to infantry. Say it would slow vehicles down 60% for 60 seconds in an 8 meter radius when activated. Long enough to counter active mods. It would take luck to get the vehicle on top of it and coordination to let a squad take advantage of it, but that would finally put a stop to those HAVs that just run when they take any damage and then are back in two minutes. Or encourage them to have teammates nearby who can jump out and kill you while you are holding your webifier.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1959	Posted - 2013.08.27 19:03:00 - [10] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: Skihids wrote: Kage Roth wrote: I still want a stasis webifier deployable to equip to infantry. Say it would slow vehicles down 60% for 60 seconds in an 8 meter radius when activated. Long enough to counter active mods. It would take luck to get the vehicle on top of it and coordination to let a squad take advantage of it, but that would finally put a stop to those HAVs that just run when they take any damage and then are back in two minutes. Or encourage them to have teammates nearby who can jump out and kill you while you are holding your webifier. No passengers without small turrets! Tanks are going full lone wolf now. The thing is tanks will have to coordinate with infantry now in order to do anything useful and get out again. They won't be able to do much on their own as the enemy can just hunker down and avoid the tank for the relatively short period of time they are "active", then come out and lob AV as it runs away. Friendly infantry will multiply the effect as it is in "active" mode and help cover its retreat. I see a tank used primarily as a breakthrough tool where it leads the charge to an objective, pounds the enemy and distracts them from killing the blues who overwhelm them. If successful the tank can regen in place, or if not it runs away under cover of the blues. If everything fails it gets blown up.

Skihids Bullet Cluster 1959	Posted - 2013.08.27 19:08:00 - [11] - Quote Concurrent with making vehicles mainly "breakthrough" assets is the an actual incentive to assault heavily defended objectives. Outside PC there really isn't any incentive. Yes, the current event attempts to make it worthwhile to put extra effort into winning, but what about when that's over? Why would any one throw themselves into a meat grinder when it's ISK stupid to do so? Why would blue dots be ecstatic to get tank support or a dropship ride to the objective when they can just sit back and snipe or pick off reds on the edges? We need a reason to win.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1964	Posted - 2013.08.28 17:11:00 - [12] - Quote I'm encouraged by the new plans for vehicles as it has the opportunity to introduce a deeper level of strategy and tactics into battle. Finite ammo and "burst tanking" would create a greater dependency on blue support for tankers. I understand that tankers want to be able to run as solo as infantry, but I would argue that infantry also needs to coordinate much better to be effective. As a dropship pilot i'm already dependent on gunners so I'm used to "just piloting" while others shoot so I'm not as wedded to soloing that tankers are. This pass leaves tanks as solo vehicles, and actually encourages it with the ability to remove small turrets. This is made possible by adding burst mode, but I'd like to see multi-crew tanks explored as well. DUST needs to fulfill its promise of strategy and tactics, and not devote the majority of effort at solo "Mercenary TDM" mode where everyone isn't communicating. As a dropship pilot I'm also encouraged by the non-slaying missions this introduces for dropships. Resupply, shield transfer, remote vehicle repair all offer non-shooting missions that can yield rewards. I wouldn't mind having light turret modules for this function to add on or replace pilot controlled modules as flying and survival can take all my attention. I love the idea that limited ammo of each type would encourage light vehicles to be AI and the larger turrets to focus on AV. That mimics real life where a tank main gun isn't generally used to kill individual infantry but is rather used to take out hard points, installations, and other vehicles. That makes tanks more focused and not a jack of all trades (though they can fit small turrets as well). Dropships are also meant as transport, and it's great that you are going to reward that function, but don't forget the other half of the equation. Infantry has to be rewarded for taking the dropship ride or the pilots won't get the opportunity for those rewards. That means both infantry incentive AND a smooth way to accomplish it. Failing that I can see a huge "taxi stand" line with dropships sitting empty waiting for passengers and going broke. As others have pointed out dropships can't be overly reliant on active modules as simply deploying outside the spawn and under the flight ceiling can be equated with "going into battle".
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1967	Posted - 2013.08.29 03:34:00 - [13] - Quote Void Echo wrote: ladwar wrote: seeing this page have 20 pages of replies and 1.4 only has 16. clearly a lot of pilots are going to leave if they don't actually balance anything out and it turns out to be the same fail sauce that PC was. very true.. its just a very hard discussion dealing with something that's never had a real purpose yet has made its mark as an unbalanced **** hole that still have investments. It's impossible to balance without context. We need to know the intended roles/missions before anyone can declare the OP or UP for said role.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1994	Posted - 2013.08.31 14:40:00 - [14] - Quote This rework would be a great opportunity to move to a cap system. I'll argue here that it's not even a new concept for players. Stamina anyone? Yes, that's right, infantry already has a "body capacitor". Running and jumping drain it at different rates, various skills and modules affect it in various ways. The vehicle cap could simply replace the infantry stamina bar just as the vehicle shield/armor bars replace the suit's bars. That would make it both more flexible AND more understandable than the cool-down system. Even beginner players instinctively understand the cap system when you use familiar words like "stamina". They are quite used to managing their body capacitor, and that would carry over to vehicles as well. Players are not stupid. CCP please don't miss this opportunity!
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1994	Posted - 2013.08.31 14:58:00 - [15] - Quote Gabriella Grey wrote: I like the Idea stated above about releasing the other vehicle race variants, but the Eve capacitors only work for the ship itself mostly. You can run out of rockets, and other ammunition, with the exception of Amarr, if CCP has plans of coming out with Amarr turrets in the future. I think having a capacitor on the ground would make vehicle use much more difficult for new players, unless they make them really not a big deal, and have them in the game just for the sake of having them. The current cool-down system is far more clunky and confusing than a capacitor based system. Let's reverse things for a moment and give infantry movement a cool-down mechanism for comparison. When you want to run you activate your sprint module, then deactivate it and wait for the cool-down before you can sprint again. How in the world is that easier to use or understand than stamina which is just another word for "body capacitor"?
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1995	Posted - 2013.08.31 16:18:00 - [16] - Quote Nguruthos IX wrote: Skihids wrote: Gabriella Grey wrote: I like the Idea stated above about releasing the other vehicle race variants, but the Eve capacitors only work for the ship itself mostly. You can run out of rockets, and other ammunition, with the exception of Amarr, if CCP has plans of coming out with Amarr turrets in the future. I think having a capacitor on the ground would make vehicle use much more difficult for new players, unless they make them really not a big deal, and have them in the game just for the sake of having them. The current cool-down system is far more clunky and confusing than a capacitor based system. Let's reverse things for a moment and give infantry movement a cool-down mechanism for comparison. When you want to run you activate your sprint module, then deactivate it and wait for the cool-down before you can sprint again. How in the world is that easier to use or understand than stamina which is just another word for "body capacitor"? Yes, I fear now may be the only real time to move to Cap. If not, it would take another re-working and lots of lost effort in the direction of whatever the heck they're doing now. Cap is objectively better for everything even if it is a little harder to setup. I would rather they rush cap, and then iterate on it with successive builds than have to scrap everything AGAIN and take a whole 2 months to do it once they conclude cap is the only way to go... But in what way would cap be harder to set up? It's just vehicle stamina and all the code is in place to support that. The stamina display bar is already in the game. All the code to use and restore stamina are in the game. All the code for modules and skills that affect stamina are already in the game. If anything having half a dozen activation and cool-down timers is more complex.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1996	Posted - 2013.08.31 23:40:00 - [17] - Quote Gabriella Grey wrote: Skihids wrote: Gabriella Grey wrote: I like the Idea stated above about releasing the other vehicle race variants, but the Eve capacitors only work for the ship itself mostly. You can run out of rockets, and other ammunition, with the exception of Amarr, if CCP has plans of coming out with Amarr turrets in the future. I think having a capacitor on the ground would make vehicle use much more difficult for new players, unless they make them really not a big deal, and have them in the game just for the sake of having them. The current cool-down system is far more clunky and confusing than a capacitor based system. Let's reverse things for a moment and give infantry movement a cool-down mechanism for comparison. When you want to run you activate your sprint module, then deactivate it and wait for the cool-down before you can sprint again. How in the world is that easier to use or understand than stamina which is just another word for "body capacitor"? The modules already work in a way like a capacitor, and doesn't need to be changed. Eve has it where modules have this similar cool down effect, and having a re-scripting of code for a specific button to be assigned this in the relation to a sprint button, would limit what you could really use in module slots, unless they come out with remapping and spend more time working on trying to follow other types of games. I think CCP has something very unique going on here, and should not change certain things in relations of the controls to work similar to other games, example, call of duty etc. Though I am not saying your suggestion is a bad, one and respect it, I just don't think its something needed to make a serious impact and simplicity that they are trying to accomplish across all vehicles. Actually no, they don't act like capacitors. They act like sparklers. You light the up and they run until they burn out. Then you wait for them to cool down before you can light the next one up. You misunderstand me if you think I'm advocating activating all modules via L3. That's great for the AB, but the rest can be turned on and off via the current wheel mechanism. This doesn't have to alter the physical controls in any way.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1996	Posted - 2013.09.01 04:14:00 - [18] - Quote Needless Sacermendor wrote: Skihids wrote: The current cool-down system is far more clunky and confusing than a capacitor based system. Let's reverse things for a moment and give infantry movement a cool-down mechanism for comparison. When you want to run you activate your sprint module, then deactivate it and wait for the cool-down before you can sprint again. How in the world is that easier to use or understand than stamina which is just another word for "dropsuit capacitor"? Fixed that for you. Thanks
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2007	Posted - 2013.09.04 00:00:00 - [19] - Quote I've mentioned this in the 1.4 feedback thread, but I'll repeat it here. The new dropship camera significantly reduces the situational awareness of the pilot. It rides too close to the ship. I don't need a close up of the ass end of my ship, I need to see what is in front of me. I'd also like to see what is around me as well. As a real pilot I'm trained to turn my head and look out all the windows. I know what is in front, and what is to each side of me. I've got an idea for you that will improve both situational awareness an immersion: First Person View in a cockpit with a wraparound view! It can be an internal projection (and probably would be over real windows in a heavily armed craft), so you don't have to change the external artwork. Think the bubble canopy of a light helicopter. The pilot can look just about everywhere except straight behind himself. I would like to be able to look side to side as well as up and down independent of the flight path of my dropship. There aren't enough joysticks on the DS3 you say? Well how about letting pilots add a simple set of USB rudder pedals for yaw control and turn the Right stick into a pure look control? It doesn't have to be mandatory, just make it an option in the control menu. The ADS gun could still be a spinal gun, or you could tie to the look in both elevation and traversal so it is completely independent of the flight path. That would give pilots a way to apply personal skill to their play If you make the FPV useful for 90% of the flying we do you would be free to build a TPV camera for the remaining 10% that the FPV wouldn't be good for (though I can't see exactly what it would be needed for with a good FPV).